Author Topic: We have 100 Senators again. (Read 11145 times)

Red Dragon Thorn · « **on:** June 30, 2009, 02:41:09 PM »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31667236/ns/politics-capitol_hill

Looks like the inevitable happened and the Supreme Court told Coleman to pack it in and go home

MN will soon have its 2 senators again, giving the Dem's a Filibuster proof majority.

TimMierz · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2009, 03:22:04 PM »

It's about time that whole mess was sorted out.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2009, 03:45:21 PM »

Now Minnesotans can get on to worrying about important things like whether or not Favre will come to the Vikings.

Although I wouldn't say it's over until Pawlenty signs the certificate. I wouldn't put it past Norm to appeal to federal courts. But I guess I couldn't blame him, since the alternative is letting Franken go to Washington. There's a reason why Obama won handily here in MN, while Franken (maybe) won by a slight margin. And it's not because Coleman is wildly popular...

~Jake of the Wolves~ · « **Reply #3 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:12:12 PM »

It's over? Wonder how many times that headline's come up

Rubber band warrior · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:49:57 PM »

Joke:

Why is Al Franken going to be holding a seance this weekend?

To be thanking the people who voted for him!

(There were more votes cast than there were actual people who showed up to the polls... in case you didn't get the joke.)

The Guardian · « **Reply #5 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:52:13 PM »

~Jake of the Wolves~ · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:57:09 PM »

I might get it except for...whats a seance?

crustpope · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:02:55 PM »

That is the democratic way right? AS they say in Chicago, "Vote early, Vote often"

The Schaef · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:05:17 PM »

It's to contact dead people, suggesting that the vote was stuffed with illegal ballots, e.g. from registrants who are actually dead now.

If it was Illinois I'd say it was an even bet. This is a little more like Washington state a few years back, where you just keep counting until you get the result you want.

But then, everybody thinks it's fixed when it's not "their guy" who wins.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:30:36 PM »

Quote from: Rubber band warrior on June 30, 2009, 04:49:57 PM

(There were more votes cast than there were actual people who showed up to the polls... in case you didn't get the joke.)

During the oral argument before the MN Supreme Court, one of the justices asked if there was any evidence of fraud or intentional misconduct and the lawyer for team Coleman answered with an emphatic no. It's too bad you weren't there, Rubber Band, to point out that there were more votes cast than voters. That might have helped the Coleman case.

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 30, 2009, 03:45:21 PM

There's a reason why Obama won handily here in MN, while Franken (maybe) won by a slight margin.

Just as there's a reason why in his three state wide campaigns, Norm Coleman lost to a former professional wrestler, barely beat a dead guy, and lost to a comedian.

Quote from: The Schaef on June 30, 2009, 05:05:17 PM

This is a little more like Washington state a few years back, where you just keep counting until you get the result you want.

Like RBW's claim above this statement is false. You don't have to trust me, however. The entire process was videotaped and followed pre-existing Minnesota State law to the letter, so you can point out the flaws directly. If you want to believe the process was tainted, go ahead, but realize that the Coleman lawyers disagree with you, as do the Justices (predominantly appointed by Republican governors) whom voted unanimously in every single major decision.

~Jake of the Wolves~ · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:35:28 PM »

I get it. Joke is funny.

The Guardian · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:39:17 PM »

Quote

Just as there's a reason why in his three state wide campaigns, Norm Coleman lost to a former professional wrestler, barely beat a dead guy, and lost to a comedian.

Says more about the state than it does about Norm Coleman...

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:47:59 PM »

Ahhhh, politics......

On a related note, Kevin Youkilis passed Mark Texieria in All-Star voting for AL First Basmen, even though he is mired in a horrible slump. Clearly my fellow Red Sox fans have manipulated the system. You know something is wrong when Ted Williams casted one of the votes, since there couldn't possibly be another T.W. anywhere in Red Sox Nation.

LadyNobody · « **Reply #13 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:55:25 PM »

I may love Minnesota...but sometimes the people here confound me.

I'm glad that it was Senator Klobuchar that presented my team with awards at the WAC...if it had been Al Franken, I might have refused to shake his hand.

~Britta

sk · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2009, 06:14:35 PM »

Quote

Just as there's a reason why in his three state wide campaigns, Norm Coleman lost to a former professional wrestler, barely beat a dead guy, and lost to a comedian.

Maybe we really are part of MN... our governor position has been filled by a very similar list of people...

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #15 on:** June 30, 2009, 06:19:34 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 30, 2009, 05:47:59 PM

On a related note, Kevin Youkilis passed Mark Texieria in All-Star voting for AL First Basmen, even though he is mired in a horrible slump. Clearly my fellow Red Sox fans have manipulated the system.

I think it should be noted Justin Morneau has a higher OPS+ than both Youk and Tex. I guess the all-star game can't handle our small-market players....

The Schaef · « **Reply #16 on:** June 30, 2009, 06:29:45 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 30, 2009, 05:30:36 PM

If you want to believe the process was tainted, go ahead, but realize that the Coleman lawyers disagree with you,

So let me see if I understand your statement correctly. Coleman's lawyers sued over the election results so they could go to court and argue to the judges that the election process was complete and correct?

The Guardian · « **Reply #17 on:** June 30, 2009, 06:41:31 PM »

lol

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #18 on:** June 30, 2009, 06:49:43 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on June 30, 2009, 06:19:34 PM

I think it should be noted Justin Morneau has a higher OPS+ than both Youk and Tex. I guess the all-star game can't handle our small-market players....

Justin Who? ...... From Minnesota? ......

Wait, isn't that The Guardian? I think he was disqualified from All-Star voting because his 2007 Natz T2 deck was OP'd.

LadyNobody · « **Reply #19 on:** June 30, 2009, 08:40:19 PM »

His T2 decks are always overpowered. This is why I stopped playing him in T2. Problem solved.

~Britta

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 30, 2009, 11:56:51 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on June 30, 2009, 05:05:17 PM

This is a little more like Washington state a few years back, where you just keep counting until you get the result you want.

Prove it. The entirety of the post-election proceedings are available on the web, so go point our where Minnesota election officials kept counting until they got the results they wanted. You have made a statement of fact, and all the evidence you could possibly require to prove your claim is available, so please prove your claim.

Quote from: The Schaef on June 30, 2009, 06:29:45 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 30, 2009, 05:30:36 PM
If you want to believe the process was tainted, go ahead, but realize that the Coleman lawyers disagree with you,

So let me see if I understand your statement correctly.

My argument is simple. You made a claim and I am trying to get you to provide evidence for it.

Quote

Coleman's lawyers sued over the election results so they could go to court and argue to the judges that the election process was complete and correct?

Here's a snippet from the oral argument...

Justice Paul Anderson: "Is there any evidence of any fraud, any favoritism, or anything other than the election officials in Minnesota tried to do the best job possible to apply the law?"

Joe Friedberg (Coleman lead attorney): "Absolutely not, and there's no voter fraud, there's no election fraud."

Just to make my argument painfully clear... You claimed that the Senate election involved officials who kept counting until they got the results they wanted. The lead attorney for team Coleman says the there is absolutely no evidence of favoritism in the process. In other words, you are free to believe the system was tainted if you want, but the Coleman lawyers disagree with you.

The Schaef · « **Reply #21 on:** July 01, 2009, 12:07:07 AM »

Amazing that you posted that much and never answered my question.

Thanks for that. I've learned my lesson.

The Spy · « **Reply #22 on:** July 01, 2009, 12:57:11 AM »

On a more philosophical and hypothetical note, the wisened Democrat shouldn't even be proud that his party has such an overwhelming majority!

To be a consistent conservative, I wouldn't even be happy if the Republicans held such a landslide of seats in the senate while having a conservative president. This imbalance, regardless of the party in control, is just that: An Imbalance! Thomas Jefferson warned against boiling politics down to only two parties... he would have shivered to see only one with so much control in politics. The give and take, the debate, and the thoughtful checks and balances don't matter one bit if one party has so much control over the executive and legislative branches.

If I were a Democrat, I would most certainly be frustrated with my party as it cheers on a political realm without appropriate boundaries and mindful conflict. Political conflict is good in and of itself. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

The Guardian · « **Reply #23 on:** July 01, 2009, 01:00:47 AM »

Excellent point.

Spy

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 01, 2009, 01:47:41 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 01, 2009, 12:07:07 AM

Amazing that you posted that much and never answered my question.

I did answer it. The Coleman lawyers did not go to court because they felt the process was tainted. When specifically asked if there was fraud or favoritism in the process, they answered no.

If your sarcasm was intended to ascertain why team Coleman went to court, that is relatively simple. They went to court in an attempt to get enough additional ballots counted to overcome Al Franken's 312 vote lead. Their legal problem was that the ballots they wanted counted were not legally cast.

Sadly, it's not even surprising (much less amazing) that you decide to besmirch the MN election process with precisely zero evidence to back up your claims.

Quote from: The Spy on July 01, 2009, 12:57:11 AM

If I were a Democrat, I would most certainly be frustrated with my party as it cheers on a political realm without appropriate boundaries and mindful conflict. Political conflict is good in and of itself. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I not sure what you mean by "appropriate boundaries." I will admit to being a little disheartened that the Republican party is in such a sad state that it cannot (or chooses not to) put forward substantive policy proposals to act as a counter to Democratic policy proposals.

The Schaef · « **Reply #25 on:** July 01, 2009, 08:19:59 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 01, 2009, 01:47:41 AM

If your sarcasm was intended to ascertain why team Coleman went to court, that is relatively simple. They went to court in an attempt to get enough additional ballots counted to overcome Al Franken's 312 vote lead. Their legal problem was that the ballots they wanted counted were not legally cast.

It was not sarcasm, I simply could not figure out why you would present your claim in such a manner as to suggest the lawyers spent the last six months looking for a chance to tell people that everything was fine. Your telling of the story didn't make a lot of sense.

Quote

Sadly, it's not even surprising (much less amazing) that you decide to besmirch the MN election process with precisely zero evidence to back up your claims.

So your accusation here is that I have a standing pattern of making statements just to smear other people, and never providing any factual support whatsoever?

Quote

I not sure what you mean by "appropriate boundaries." I will admit to being a little disheartened that the Republican party is in such a sad state that it cannot (or chooses not to) put forward substantive policy proposals to act as a counter to Democratic policy proposals.

Why would you repeatedly tear into me on this thread, only to turn around and put forth an easily falsifiable claim as this?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #26 on:** July 01, 2009, 09:19:38 AM »

Quote from: The Spy on July 01, 2009, 12:57:11 AM

Political conflict is good in and of itself. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

.... other than Schaef vs. MJB, that is.....

Oops! I said otherwise. ::Bad YMT:: :: Bad YMT::

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** July 01, 2009, 10:04:42 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2009, 09:19:38 AM

.... other than Schaef vs. MJB, that is.....

Guys, I could be wrong, but I think that what started all this was Schaef just making a joke about politics and voting. I don't think either of you really needs to have this big of an argument about it.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #28 on:** July 01, 2009, 10:28:59 AM »

Specially not on my thread about how we have 100 senators again, I didn't put in the title come and argue about whether we should have Franken or Coleman.

(FWIW I'm a die-hard Republican who gave 9 months of my life to campaign for Coleman, I am slightly disappointed to see my hard work go for essentially nothing.)

~Jake of the Wolves~ · « **Reply #29 on:** July 01, 2009, 11:38:43 AM »

Quote from: The Spy on July 01, 2009, 12:57:11 AM

On a more philosophical and hypothetical note, the wisened Democrat shouldn't even be proud that his party has such an overwhelming majority!

To be a consistent conservative, I wouldn't even be happy if the Republicans held such a landslide of seats in the senate while having a conservative president. This imbalance, regardless of the party in control, is just that: An Imbalance! Thomas Jefferson warned against boiling politics down to only two parties... he would have shivered to see only one with so much control in politics. The give and take, the debate, and the thoughtful checks and balances don't matter one bit if one party has so much control over the executive and legislative branches.

If I were a Democrat, I would most certainly be frustrated with my party as it cheers on a political realm without appropriate boundaries and mindful conflict. Political conflict is good in and of itself. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

George Washington did too. You bring up a good point, I'll have to remember that.

The Spy · « **Reply #30 on:** July 01, 2009, 11:51:24 AM »

If I may add on to that, something else has come to my mind which makes me even more nervous about this political imbalance. Since both political parties have been spending like drunken sailors, (no offense to the sailors) the only thing that really kept both of them at bay was the conflict between the two parties. With that conflict nearly gone, the American citizen loses in the long run, regardless of the party in control.

As Mark Twain aptly put it, "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." This is even more true without the conflict between parties.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #31 on:** July 01, 2009, 12:10:29 PM »

Somehow, getting political advice from a Spy makes me uneasy.

LadyNobody · « **Reply #32 on:** July 01, 2009, 03:37:01 PM »

YMT

This sounds backward coming from a teenager to two adult men, but MJB and Schaef need to grow up. I respect you both in the highest regard, but my respect wavers when you get into petty arguments where you basically call each other stupid in fancy terms. Sorry to be blunt like that, but it really is annoying.

As far as the actual discussion, I agree with Spy. Conflict is good because it keeps each party in check. Where there is only dominating party, there is bound to be trouble. This is because too much power corrupts mankind, as is seen throughout all of history. In fact, that is the very reason America was founded, was it not? Because one king tried to overstep his bounds of power and thus caused the people to suffer? I think our current situation is not so different; this is not a jab at the Democrats, but I simply agree that the imbalance such as it is will likely lead to trouble.

~Britta

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #33 on:** July 01, 2009, 03:57:40 PM »

For what it's worth, knowing MJB and Schaef in person is essential to understanding how they communicated. In context of their personalities, I don't think any insults are being slung.

The Schaef · « **Reply #34 on:** July 01, 2009, 04:10:33 PM »

Quote from: ~Achewon Enleaye~ on July 01, 2009, 03:37:01 PM

I respect you both in the highest regard, but my respect wavers when you get into petty arguments where you basically call each other stupid in fancy terms. Sorry to be blunt like that, but it really is annoying.

May I ask you what I've done here other than ask MJB to clarify what he is saying?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #35 on:** July 01, 2009, 04:35:20 PM »

Schaef and MJB have been banned from playing each other in tournaments after what happened last time. Schaef started a RA with King David. MJB blocked with Emperor Nero. This led to a discussion about whether Emperors were part of a Royal Family. That discussion quickly deteriorated into an argument about whether Obama's presidency more closely resembles a Republic or Monarchy.

Ultimately a brouhaha ensued, and the two had to be restrained (from speaking). That led to the ban.

The Schaef · « **Reply #36 on:** July 01, 2009, 04:36:33 PM »

In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that I said "oligarchy", not "monarchy".

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #37 on:** July 01, 2009, 04:37:34 PM »

Oh, I would have loved to have seen that!

The Guardian · « **Reply #38 on:** July 01, 2009, 05:36:16 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2009, 04:35:20 PM

Schaef and MJB have been banned from playing each other in tournaments after what happened last time. Schaef started a RA with King David. MJB blocked with Emperor Nero. This led to a discussion about whether Emperors were part of a Royal Family. That discussion quickly deteriorated into an argument about whether Obama's presidency more closely resembles a Republic or Monarchy.

Ultimately a brouhaha ensued, and the two had to be restrained (from speaking). That led to the ban.

Dumb question...how much of that is true?

The Schaef · « **Reply #39 on:** July 01, 2009, 05:40:58 PM »

All joking aside, zero. Matt and by extension his son have been nothing but civil the few times I've met them, and when I was stuck trying to register 120 individuals by myself the first morning of nationals, they stepped in and helped get name tags distributed so people could start playing faster. I never asked, they never offered, they just stepped in and helped where it was needed, and never asked for recognition or reward.

Well, they're half-disappointed now because I just gave recognition of the fact.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #40 on:** July 01, 2009, 05:47:50 PM »

On a related note, I have been banned from major tournaments. I was playing Justin Alstad and started using fake cards that I had printed just before the tourney. Justin didn't notice they were fake, but the judge (Schaef) did, so he banned me.

Too bad, too. My Fezzik card had dominated and won several lost souls. Indigo was discarded early on, but I healed him in time to defeat The Twelve-Fingered Giant.

The Schaef · « **Reply #41 on:** July 01, 2009, 06:25:26 PM »

You would have gotten away with it if you hadn't been rhyming everything your opponent said to you.

The Guardian · « **Reply #42 on:** July 01, 2009, 06:30:46 PM »

Quote

Justin didn't notice they were fake

It's not that I didn't notice...have you ever tried telling a teacher they are cheating?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #43 on:** July 01, 2009, 06:39:43 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 01, 2009, 06:25:26 PM

You would have gotten away with it if you hadn't been rhyming everything your opponent said to you.

It's a habit, there's nothing I can do.

Quote from: The Guardian on July 01, 2009, 06:30:46 PM

...have you ever tried telling a teacher they are cheating?

I'm just glad I didn't get a beating.

The Spy · « **Reply #44 on:** July 01, 2009, 11:55:38 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 01, 2009, 01:47:41 AM

Quote from: The Spy on July 01, 2009, 12:57:11 AM
If I were a Democrat, I would most certainly be frustrated with my party as it cheers on a political realm without appropriate boundaries and mindful conflict. Political conflict is good in and of itself. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I not sure what you mean by "appropriate boundaries." I will admit to being a little disheartened that the Republican party is in such a sad state that it cannot (or chooses not to) put forward substantive policy proposals to act as a counter to Democratic policy proposals.

"Appropriate boundaries"="Balanced conflict"

Furthermore, I do not pity the Republican party... I pity America (but not because of the party in control, but because of its inability to keep itself balanced). Along similar lines, I do not fear for the Republican party either. Human nature dictates that there will always be a constant change in politics, as long as the people have the freedom to change the status quo. As the Latin phrase goes, "Res nolunt diu male administrari." The phrase means, "Things refuse to be mismanaged for long." It is a general rule of nature and society.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2009, 12:10:29 PM

Somehow, getting political advice from a Spy makes me uneasy.

But listening to what politicians say is more to your liking?

The thing about politicians is that even when they sleep, they have to lie!!!... heh... get it? The Spy just told a joke!

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #45 on:** July 02, 2009, 02:41:50 AM »

Quote from: The Spy on July 01, 2009, 11:55:38 PM

As the Latin phrase goes, "Res nolunt diu male administrari." The phrase means, "Things refuse to be mismanaged for long."

What is this? Someone quotes a latin phrase, and rather than just trying to look smart, actually explains what it means so that everyone can participate in the discussion without having to google a dead language. What is this board coming to?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #46 on:** July 02, 2009, 03:47:27 AM »

Egads! Non sanus mens!

The Spy · « **Reply #47 on:** July 02, 2009, 11:44:35 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 02, 2009, 02:41:50 AM

Quote from: The Spy on July 01, 2009, 11:55:38 PM
As the Latin phrase goes, "Res nolunt diu male administrari." The phrase means, "Things refuse to be mismanaged for long."
What is this? Someone quotes a latin phrase, and rather than just trying to look smart, actually explains what it means so that everyone can participate in the discussion without having to google a dead language. What is this board coming to?

Thought I would try something new.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 02, 2009, 03:47:27 AM

Egads! Non sanus mens!

I really thought this was funny... I am glad you have decided to post something witty, even after your declared hiatus.

News:

Author Topic: We have 100 Senators again. (Read 11145 times)

~Jake of the Wolves~

~Jake of the Wolves~

The Schaef

~Jake of the Wolves~

Rawrlolsauce!

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

~Jake of the Wolves~

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef