mr_genius Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2009 -> 09:48 AM) WSJ is a quality paper, better than most. Solid journalism most of the time. But the article you posted was not journalism, it was an OPINION article, which could have appeared anywhere. as compared to the opinion articles that every other news organization tries to pass off as journalism? honestly it could not have appeared anywhere, it was not a DNC advertisement so it wouldn't be printed in most 'news' publications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 11, 2009 -> 05:40 PM) as compared to the opinion articles that every other news organization tries to pass off as journalism? honestly it could not have appeared anywhere, it was not a DNC advertisement so it wouldn't be printed in most 'news' publications. Hard to discuss these things when you are that far over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2009 -> 05:49 PM) Hard to discuss these things when you are that far over the top. many major newspaper publications are blatently pro-Democrat and there is a ton of data on the issue which proves it. now if you guys wish to ignore the facts and the data, that is up to you. edit: 'LIBERAL MEDIA' THREAD HIJACK! with all my posts since my last liberal media rant, the probability that i would submit such a post was nearing 1 Edited January 12, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 LOL, accusing us of ignoring the facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 11, 2009 -> 05:59 PM) LOL, accusing us of ignoring the facts sorry, but it's an accurate assessment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 keep it up, this is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 11, 2009 -> 06:06 PM) keep it up, this is hilarious. Don't worry I will. Almost as hilarious as you being a journalism student. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 11, 2009 -> 06:06 PM) keep it up, this is hilarious. QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 11, 2009 -> 06:10 PM) Don't worry I will. Almost as hilarious as you being a journalism student. Take it down a notch please, both of you. Just a friendly warning, before this goes too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 democrat secretary of state Ritchie who has muscled every election official into fixing the votes for Franken is being so partisan now as to refuse to certify Franken's election according to the law! "Minnesota law is very clear on when a certificate of election can be issued. Neither the governor nor I may sign a certificate of election in the U.S. Senate race until all election contests have reached a final determination. Even if the governor issues a certificate of election prior to the conclusion of the contest phase, I will not sign it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 02:09 PM) democrat secretary of state Ritchie who has muscled every election official into fixing the votes for Franken is being so partisan now as to refuse to certify Franken's election according to the law! "Minnesota law is very clear on when a certificate of election can be issued. Neither the governor nor I may sign a certificate of election in the U.S. Senate race until all election contests have reached a final determination. Even if the governor issues a certificate of election prior to the conclusion of the contest phase, I will not sign it." There is a huge differnce between being partisan in the process and then not going against the DIRECT law that is written. Of course he can't sign it, it's VERY f***ing black and white in their law. This vote valid? For Coleman? Naaah. Looks like they checked two boxes. For Franken? OK, looks good, it was just an accident and they INTENDED to vote for Franken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 09:18 PM) There is a huge differnce between being partisan in the process and then not going against the DIRECT law that is written. Of course he can't sign it, it's VERY f***ing black and white in their law. This vote valid? For Coleman? Naaah. Looks like they checked two boxes. For Franken? OK, looks good, it was just an accident and they INTENDED to vote for Franken! Yes. That's what's happening. Do you remember all those sample controversial ballots that balta posted on here that we all guessed spiritedly on? They were pretty much all thrown out, including that check for franken, but write-in for lizard people, or anything where two boxes were filled in, like the one that said no. So how is that happening? The secretary of state and governor could sign a provisional certification to seat Franken while the legal challenges are done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 03:39 PM) Yes. That's what's happening. Do you remember all those sample controversial ballots that balta posted on here that we all guessed spiritedly on? They were pretty much all thrown out, including that check for franken, but write-in for lizard people, or anything where two boxes were filled in, like the one that said no. So how is that happening? The secretary of state and governor could sign a provisional certification to seat Franken while the legal challenges are done. All's fair in the world of politics, as long as your guy wins. I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 02:44 PM) All's fair in the world of politics, as long as your guy wins. I understand. So, in other words, you're recommending we form a mob, go and break down the door of whatever court/elections commission is currently deciding things and threaten them to the point that they won't count any more ballots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 04:52 PM) So, in other words, you're recommending we form a mob, go and break down the door of whatever court/elections commission is currently deciding things and threaten them to the point that they won't count any more ballots? Not necessary. I'll just find a few thousand ballots for my candidate if they are needed. Edited January 12, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 04:57 PM) Not necessary. I'll just find a few thousand ballots for my candidate if they are needed. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Coleman has a really strong case! tpm "We have seen the best thing that Norm Coleman's legal team has done so far in this election trial -- and it ain't pretty. This afternoon the Coleman team was bringing in rejected absentee voters to show that their ballots were improperly tossed. So far the court has heard from six people, most of of whom said they were contacted by the Republican Party in the last few weeks. They mostly seemed sympathetic enough, putting a human face on the disenfranchised Coleman voter -- but at least two of them appeared to have been rejected properly under the conditions of Minnesota law. One of the voters was Douglas Thompson, who admitted under oath that his girlfriend filled out his absentee ballot application for him, signing his name with her own hand and purporting to be himself. His ballot was rejected because the signature on his ballot envelope (his own) did not match the signature on the application (his girlfriend's). The Coleman team's argument appears to be that he is still a legal voter in Minnesota, as the signature on the ballot was his own, even if admitted dishonesty was involved in getting the ballot. Keep in mind: Thompson's story came up during the direct examination by Coleman lawyer James Langdon. So the Coleman camp fully knew this information and decided to make him into a witness. Another one of the voters, an older man named Wesley Briest, initially responded that he voted at the polls -- not by absentee. Then Coleman attorney James Langdon showed him his absentee ballot envelope, reminding him that he did not go to the polls, too. Upon cross-examination by Franken lawyer Kevin Hamilton, Briest admitted that his wife, who served as the witness on his ballot, did not fully complete the witness section of the absentee ballot. On top of this, the court began over four hours late today, after the judges and lawyers had to go into a closed-door meeting to figure out how to bring in original rejected absentee ballot envelopes in the wake of yesterday's mess involving the Coleman team making alterations to their photocopied evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 For what seems like the 3rd time this week, the Coleman legal team has made an effort to prove that they are in fact more inept than the team that was prosecuting Senator Ted Stevens. They're caught trying to cover up a witness. And yes, this is still going on. The Republicans want to keep this going as long as possible so that it keeps the Dems from getting that extra vote (and they've stated so publicly and repeatedly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2009 -> 04:15 PM) For what seems like the 3rd time this week, the Coleman legal team has made an effort to prove that they are in fact more inept than the team that was prosecuting Senator Ted Stevens. They're caught trying to cover up a witness. And yes, this is still going on. The Republicans want to keep this going as long as possible so that it keeps the Dems from getting that extra vote (and they've stated so publicly and repeatedly). Let's be realistic here, how many votes is Kennedy actually going to cast this year. I know from personal experience how this type of tumor ravages a body and I believe Kennedy is pretty much done. I am not trying to be Debbie Downer or wish any harm on him, but I know how a person's mental capacity and faculties decline from this disease. It isn't pretty and I wish him the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 27, 2009 -> 09:15 PM) Let's be realistic here, how many votes is Kennedy actually going to cast this year. I know from personal experience how this type of tumor ravages a body and I believe Kennedy is pretty much done. I am not trying to be Debbie Downer or wish any harm on him, but I know how a person's mental capacity and faculties decline from this disease. It isn't pretty and I wish him the best. He will cast votes when he's needed, and that's the fair thing to do, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2009 -> 04:15 PM) For what seems like the 3rd time this week, the Coleman legal team has made an effort to prove that they are in fact more inept than the team that was prosecuting Senator Ted Stevens. They're caught trying to cover up a witness. And yes, this is still going on. The Republicans want to keep this going as long as possible so that it keeps the Dems from getting that extra vote (and they've stated so publicly and repeatedly). I think this latest stunt very well may have finally sunk them. this wont last much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 27, 2009 -> 07:15 PM) Let's be realistic here, how many votes is Kennedy actually going to cast this year. I know from personal experience how this type of tumor ravages a body and I believe Kennedy is pretty much done. I am not trying to be Debbie Downer or wish any harm on him, but I know how a person's mental capacity and faculties decline from this disease. It isn't pretty and I wish him the best. If they can keep Strom Thurmond voting as long as he did, then Kennedy's going to be voting until either he wins or the cancer wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2009 -> 12:47 PM) If they can keep Strom Thurmond voting as long as he did, then Kennedy's going to be voting until either he wins or the cancer wins. My point is, at some point Kennedy will not even know what he is voting for or against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 28, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) My point is, at some point Kennedy will not even know what he is voting for or against. And my point is, he wouldn't be the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2009 -> 04:03 PM) And my point is, he wouldn't be the first. more than half the Senate has no idea what they vote for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 28, 2009 -> 07:39 PM) more than half the Senate has no idea what they vote for Heck the entire Senate if you're talking about the stimulus bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts