Minnesota Recount About Over

[Hoot Gibson]

So that's where your "rob 'em" comment comes from?

That and my extraordinary ability to judge character based on a candidate's life history.

[Clyde]

That and my extraordinary ability to judge character based on a candidate's life history.

 

Awesome. So you accuse him of thievery at same time you say he's following state law. It may be me but your jaundiced view of Franken may be distorting your thinking.

[Hoot Gibson]

Awesome. So you accuse him of thievery at same time you say he's following state law. It may be me but your jaundiced view of Franken may be distorting your thinking.

Stop distorting my posts. I never said that Franken was or was not following Minnesota law.

[Clyde]

Stop distorting my posts. I never said that Franken was or was not following Minnesota law.

 

Really?

 

If you can't beat 'em, rob 'em.

 

How should someone take that comment? Sure seems like you're saying he cheated.

 

Or is there a new slang term that I'm not aware of?

[Hoot Gibson]

Really?

 

 

 

How should someone take that comment? Sure seems like you're saying he cheated.

 

Or is there a new slang term that I'm not aware of?

Most would take the comment as an opinion. Most posts made here consist of opinions, including most of your own posts. It's what we do here.

 

Franken is a dishonest, disgusting weasel of a man and if he manages to eek out a win in heavily Democratic Minnesota, then I will not easily be convinced of the legitimacy of the victory. Instead of being a crooked has-been comedy writer, he will just become another crooked liberal US Senator. Franken will feel right at home.

[Trinity alum]

Most would take the comment as an opinion. Most posts made here consist of opinions, including most of your own posts. It's what we do here.

 

Franken is a dishonest, disgusting weasel of a man and if he manages to eek out a win in heavily Democratic Minnesota, then I will not easily be convinced of the legitimacy of the victory. Instead of being a crooked has-been comedy writer, he will just become another crooked liberal US Senator. Franken will feel right at home.

 

That will be Senator dishonest, disgusting weasl to you.:laugh:

[Trinity alum]

That and my extraordinary ability to judge character based on a candidate's life history.

 

And based on my extraordinary ability to judge people based on their posts, I'll choose not to agree with you.

[Hoot Gibson]

That will be Senator dishonest, disgusting weasl to you.:laugh:

Win or lose, he will not be my Senator. It's a shame that a beautiful state like Minnesota is inhabited with the kind of morons who consider Al Franken worthy of any elected office.

[Hoot Gibson]

And based on my extraordinary ability to judge people based on their posts, I'll choose not to agree with you.

Kudos to you for recognizing an opinion when you read one - whether you agree with it or not! :thumb:

[Clyde]

Most would take the comment as an opinion. Most posts made here consist of opinions, including most of your own posts. It's what we do here.

 

Franken is a dishonest, disgusting weasel of a man and if he manages to eek out a win in heavily Democratic Minnesota, then I will not easily be convinced of the legitimacy of the victory. Instead of being a crooked has-been comedy writer, he will just become another crooked liberal US Senator. Franken will feel right at home.

 

Interesting response since I never questioned your right to an opinion. Its doubly interesting since you seemed to try to deny your original point that this victory would be stolen if it comes to fruition.

 

Don't back down from your opinions. Just be ready to defend them.

[Hoot Gibson]

Interesting response since I never questioned your right to an opinion. Its doubly interesting since you seemed to try to deny your original point that this victory would be stolen if it comes to fruition.

 

Don't back down from your opinions. Just be ready to defend them.

You should spend more time on topic and less time critiquing other members' posts. If you have evidence of Franken's honesty, then present it. There is ample evidence that he is a liar at best, a crook at worst. If, because of his liberal political beliefs you want to believe Franken and the Minnesota Democrats are interested in having every vote counted only once, then that is certainly your right.

 

I choose to take Franken's character flaws into account myself and there is no danger that I will "back down" from my opinion that Franken will take a Senate seat by hook or crook.

 

Do you have anything substantive to add?

[Clyde]

You should spend more time on topic and less time critiquing other members' posts. If you have evidence of Franken's honesty, then present it. There is ample evidence that he is a liar at best, a crook at worst. If, because of his liberal political beliefs you want to believe Franken and the Minnesota Democrats are interested in having every vote counted only once, then that is certainly your right.

 

I choose to take Franken's character flaws into account myself and there is no danger that I will "back down" from my opinion that Franken will take a Senate seat by hook or crook.

 

Do you have anything substantive to add?

 

See, I try to read people's posts and ask logical follow-up questions. You simply contradicted yourself with your posts. Why do I have to prove he's innocent of the "rob 'em" claim that YOU made. You need to back up your allegation which you have not done. If you can't, as is evident so far, fine. I get where you're coming from.

[Hoot Gibson]

See, I try to read people's posts and ask logical follow-up questions.

So that was what what you were trying to do!

You simply contradicted yourself with your posts.

No, I didn't. That is why the logic of your follow-up questions failed. Stating an opinion that a politician is trying to steal an election does not require proof that a state election law has been broken.

Why do I have to prove he's innocent of the "rob 'em" claim that YOU made. You need to back up your allegation which you have not done.

If you are going to demand that others support their opinions beyond reasonable doubt, then rest assured, others will expect the same of you.

If you can't, as is evident so far, fine. I get where you're coming from.

:thumb: What more can one ask than to be understood by fellow BGP members? :lol:

[Hoot Gibson]

Today's article in the Star-Tribune does a pretty good job of explaining the status of the recount and the dim prospects that a clear winner will emerge any time soon. Today's article in the Star-Tribune does a pretty good job of explaining the status of the recount and the dim prospects that a clear winner will emerge any time soon.

 

The Recount: No hanging chads, but plenty of hang-ups

 

An end to the recount seems so close, yet resolving the issue of rejected absentee ballots is far off.

 

By PAT DOYLE and MIKE KASZUBA, Star Tribune

 

I've had several college courses recently that either included information literacy in the course content or actually were an information literacy course taught by library faculty. Based on what I learned in those courses in terms of source evaluation, I have to say that the alamo-girl site is actually a very poor source. It appears to be a poorly formatted compilation of excerpts of media reports. If it was mainly from the actual Congressional Record, why not link directly (or at least include links) to the relevant pages of the record? There also happens to be the issue, in terms of evaluating the source, that it freely admits to having a bias; that may still be useful in a primary source, but this is a collection of quotations from secondary sources. In short, I'd be very cautious if I were to consider citing the alamo-girl site in any of my school work (don't think that's politically based; I would be just as cautious with a similar site having a similar bias against George W. Bush).

 

With just two weeks left before a new Congress convenes, Minnesota's Senate recount has reached Florida-grade levels of confusion and controversy. Want proof?

 

On Wednesday, State Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson bristled at a lawyer's comparison of Minnesota's situation to the famous presidential recount meltdown in the Sunshine State. By Thursday, Anderson was dissenting from his own court's recount ruling and noting as a bright spot his belief that the court's order is only a "preliminary skirmish" in "an extended legal contest."

 

Thursday was Dec. 18. Florida's agony in 2000 had ended on Dec. 12. While the campaigns of Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken talk of cooperation, they are engaging in court fights over votes that will almost certainly further delay any decision.

[Clyde]

Here's the latest which projects Franken to win.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html

 

Shouldn't our issue as a country be with the fact that we can't come up with a way to vote that prevents such subjective decision-making?