[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

....in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US Senator. Should
Coleman stop all of his legal maneuvering now? The people have spoken!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:54 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US Senator.

Prove it.

Franken won more votes in a transparent and bipartisan recount.

Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:54 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US Senator.

Prove it.

Franken won more votes in a transparent and bipartisan recount.

We now know your idea of proof is anything you wish for.


Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

Fair and accurate elections be damned.

This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet. Too bad for
you about that outcome.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

Fair and accurate elections be damned.

This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet. Too bad for
you about that outcome.

Apparently "fair" has an unexpected meaning in the Scottiespeak language.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 11:50*am, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:54 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US Senator.

Prove it.

Franken won more votes in a transparent and bipartisan recount.

* We now know your idea of proof is anything you wish for.

I of course hoped that Franken would win. I fully expected Coleman to
though.

Now about those issues that you and Fox (and not the Coleman campaign)
raised... LoL.

Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

*Fair and accurate elections be damned.

You remind me of those headlines in Citizen Kane where the editor
holds up two headlines for the morning paper: "Kane wins in a
landslide" or "Voter Fraud".

Apparently there were idiots back then too. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 12:36*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

*Fair and accurate elections be damned.

This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet. Too bad for
you about that outcome.

Apparently "fair" has an unexpected meaning in the Scottiespeak language.

Here's one take:

....Knaak said the decision wouldn't be his, but he'd recommend the
challenge. He'll have to be more enthusiastic when he does so with
Sen. Coleman.

But if the former St. Paul mayor, gubernatorial candidate and (now
seriously trailing) Sen. Coleman wants to run again in this state,
does he really want to take this election to court?

Is it worth the time and money and possibility of looking like a sore
loser?

It will be difficult to say the election was "stolen," although some
partisans will. Maybe even Coleman will. (i.e., and, of course, 2pid.)

But, as Ritchie said today, the difference between this recount and
Florida's Gore vs. Bush recount is "apples and oranges" ... make that
HoneyCrisps and oranges, sir.

Will this all end Monday? Or should Coleman's campaign take the last,
final, politically dangerous step?

It's a question that must now be sadly floating in the conversations
of Coleman advisers, supporters and the senator himself whose seat
became vacant at 11 a.m. today and might — just might — be changing
ownership soon.

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009..._it_sure_seems

It also looks like Jenn has gotten into journalism. That will really
**** GOIA off. :-)

The CEO and Editor of MinnPost is Joel Kramer, former editor and then
publisher of Star Tribune. Other members of the MinnPost board of
directors are founding donors... ... Jennifer Martin, Chair of the
Martin and Brown Foundation;

http://www.minnpost.com/about/

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 1:37*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:35*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:





In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:54 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US Senator.

Prove it.

Franken won more votes in a transparent and bipartisan recount.

* We now know your idea of proof is anything you wish for.

Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

*Fair and accurate elections be damned.

This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet.

*Wow. *You really must have a grudge against the land of
frozen lakes.

Nice 'argument', 2pid. Or was this a 'discussion'?

Too bad for
you about that outcome.

Too bad for us all.

If you've ever read any of Franken's book you'd know he's knowledgable
on the issues. He'll do fine.

If you believed your "Too bad for all of us" statement, you'd be eager
to rid the Senate of people like Saxby Chambliss, Sam Brownback and
John Thune, for example. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 1:39*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 11:34*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jan 6, 11:50*am, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:54 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US Senator.

Prove it.

Franken won more votes in a transparent and bipartisan recount.

* We now know your idea of proof is anything you wish for.

I of course hoped that Franken would win. I fully expected Coleman to
though.

Now about those issues that you and Fox (and not the Coleman campaign)
raised... LoL.

* I see you remain incapable of addressing them.



Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

*Fair and accurate elections be damned.

You remind me of those headlines in Citizen Kane where the editor
holds up two headlines for the morning paper: "Kane wins in a
landslide" or "Voter Fraud".

Apparently there were idiots back then too. LoL.

*and crooks too. * Beware of them both.
*You *are a two'fer.

What are your specific allegations, 2pid?

Let's 'discuss'.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

If you believed your "Too bad for all of us" statement, you'd be eager
to rid the Senate of people like Saxby Chambliss, Sam Brownback and
John Thune, for example. LoL.

Is the entire population of Right Blogistan consumed with a single Senate
seat that will have very little practical influence in the next two years?
Or is it just Scottie's compulsion to scratch, scratch, scratch that itch?

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jan 6, 12:29*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:35*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:54 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US Senator.

Prove it.

Franken won more votes in a transparent and bipartisan recount.

* We now know your idea of proof is anything you wish for.

Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

*Fair and accurate elections be damned.

This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet.

*Wow. *You really must have a grudge against the land of
frozen lakes.

You're making stuff up. Don't you hate it when people do that?

For all I know you made this up.
"This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet."

Based on the number of votes corrected between voting and certification.

Or do you think you've established sufficient credibility for me
to take you at your word?
LoL.

Congratulations. You've gone full-Kroo.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Or do you think you've established sufficient credibility for me
to take you at your word?

Congratulations. You've gone full-Kroo.

By the by, your posse dues are due this month. Did you get the invoice?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

Or do you think you've established sufficient credibility for me
to take you at your word?

Congratulations. You've gone full-Kroo.

By the by, your posse dues are due this month. Did you get the invoice?

Damn. Does the paypal button still work?

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 2:28 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2:08 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 11:58 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Now about those issues that you and Fox (and not the Coleman campaign)
raised... LoL.

I see you remain incapable of addressing them.

Chirp chirp.

What are they, 2pid? What are your issues with this election? Let's
discuss!

chirp chirp....

Perhaps, bonehead, you missed this:

Stop desperately trying to divert the thread to your personal
issues which are obviously numerous. You are inconsequential.

I don't listen to Fox or Hannity or Limbaugh. Asking you what your
issues with the election are seems like a fair question.

But you seek a 'discussion' as usual. Oh well. Imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:29*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:35*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:

This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet.

*Wow. *You really must have a grudge against the land of
frozen lakes.

You're making stuff up. Don't you hate it when people do that?

*For all I know you made this up.
"This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet."

Based on the number of votes corrected between voting and certification.

You are correct. The last election for senate between Klobuchar and
Kennedy saw a swing of almost 2,000 votes between election day and
certification. Ritchie has done a good job.

And despite 2-3 requests, 2pid has not specified what his exact
complaints about this election and recount are, so we can assume that
he's just bleating at this point...again. LoL.

Or do you think you've established sufficient credibility for me
to take you at your word?
*LoL.

Congratulations. You've gone full-Kroo.

That happened long ago, perhaps early childhood even. Maybe in the
womb even.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jan 6, 6:26*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:29*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:35*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:54 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US
Senator.

Prove it.

Franken won more votes in a transparent and bipartisan recount.

* We now know your idea of proof is anything you wish for.

Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

*Fair and accurate elections be damned.

This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet.

*Wow. *You really must have a grudge against the land of
frozen lakes.

You're making stuff up. Don't you hate it when people do that?

*For all I know you made this up.
"This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet."

Based on the number of votes corrected between voting and certification.

The inconsistent criteria applied in corrections is enough to void
the
whole process....as I expect the court to do if they are willing to
take
the time and do the right thing.

The number of votes in question are too small to affect the outcome.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

Asked and answered again. You never to seem to get it
the first time.

Good work on your Kroo imitation.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jan 7, 12:00*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 6:26*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:29*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:35*am, MiNe 109 *
wrote:
In article

m,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:54 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US
Senator.

Prove it.

Franken won more votes in a transparent and bipartisan
recount.

* We now know your idea of proof is anything you wish for.

Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

*Fair and accurate elections be damned.

This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet.

*Wow. *You really must have a grudge against the land of
frozen lakes.

You're making stuff up. Don't you hate it when people do that?

*For all I know you made this up.
"This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet."

Based on the number of votes corrected between voting and
certification.

*The inconsistent criteria applied in corrections is enough to void
the
whole process....as I expect the court to do if they are willing to
take
the time and do the right thing.

The number of votes in question are too small to affect the outcome.

OSAF. Here's a few more opinions on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../AR20090106028
27.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

This opinion is disconcerting.

"Franken should count himself lucky he's come out on top (a decision
that conceivably could be reversed in court), but his victory should
be thought of less as the discovery of the "true winner" of the
election than as the election administration equivalent of a fair coin
toss. "

That would imply Minnesota's voters are evenly divided. If you really
believe in democracy, consider that about 57% of voters didn't want
Coleman.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 7, 2:44 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

this is beginning to sound like 2000-2001 Goreista whining.
It was unbecoming then, and it is unbecoming now.
Coleman is only challenging about 700 votes
and he is about 225 behind
he would need mor than a 460-240 split
for him to overcome Franken.

There would no doubt be some Barkley votes in there too.

As far as the rest of the votes, besides the
last 700, Coleman has conceded those.

I find it amusing that Coleman initially didn't want any of the
improperly uncounted absentee ballots to count. Now he wants to count
ones that were properly and legally discounted.

It's a good thing he's gone.