The voters choose Al Franken and the recount verified that. Then it went to a three judge panel which upheld that. What do these bozo's on the MN Supreme Court want?

What a bunch of dickwads. I swear. Seat Him already fucking useless cretins

Larry

Coleman is not only a sore loser, he has become a dickwade for Senator Mitch McConnell GOP Minority Leader who wants to hold up seating Franken. If Coleman loses which he will at the MN Supreme Court level the Supreme Court of the United States should refuuse to here this as its another Republican hate farce.

The voters choose Al Franken and the recount verified that. Then it went to a three judge panel which upheld that. What do these bozo's on the MN Supreme Court want?

Actually, by first count the voters chose Coleman. Then the recount changed that. Then the three judge panel upheld the change.

If you don't think the court can sometimes get it wrong then why don't we just eliminate appeals for all convicted criminals?

The appeals to the court in this case are to address what some felt were bad practices in the recount that affected the final outcome. This is our judicial system. Deal with it and quit whining, or get off your ass and try to get it changed.

As a non-partisan in this issue (I would like someone much closer to the constitution than either of these guys), I would like to ask some questions. Wasn't there a few counties where there were more votes counted than eligible voters? Weren't there some absentee ballots that were counted multiple times, etc.

How can anything that fubar'd be fairly decided?

And, if the MN court throws out some of the ballots, are you on the left going to accept it or appeal to the USSC? [just wanting to know how many that bitched about the FL decision being appealed will do the same if their candidate looses]

Too bad the USSC didn't let the State decide the election of 2000. Talk about a rush to judgement. So much for States Rights from a court dedicated to States rights--until it suits their party otherwise. Bushs true legacy is an Activist Judge Supreme Court that will affect America for centuries.

You can be thrown in prison without a trial.

You can be interrogated without a lawyer.

Your land can be taken by whatever company thinks they might like to use it for their business--if they have the right friends.

Second Amendment changed to--Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as the government sees fit.

The Bush legacy will continue to tear America' heart out for decades.

Actually, the part about the 2nd amendment is something from the left... the righties want to allow guns and prohibit drugs.

I always thought it was funny that the 1st amendment is not to be touched by anyone... but states can ignore the 2nd.

What would happen if a state decided to ignore the 16th and made slavery legal? Think you would be arguing for state's rights? Not very likely.

What if the state you live in made blogging a crime? Or, heck, just made you take a test, pay a fee, and copy the feds on every email / blog you send? Think that would fly? Oh, and tell the right that they can't have a federal army... see how well that flies.

Both left and right want to ignore the parts of the constitution they don't like. Both are wrong. If the constitution needs to be changed, it should be done by the people in a legal manner, not by a judge who "discovers" a new right.

The Bush legacy will continue to tear America' heart out for decades.

Bush huh?

Lets see...

You can be thrown in prison without a trial.

Patriot act... bad law. All Bush's fault? Nope. Democrats and Republicans both voted it in, then voted to renew it. Obama decided to support it. So much for blaming the whole thing on Bush.

You can be interrogated without a lawyer.

Yes... they can ask all the question they want. But you don't have to answer. Hrm... and if you WANT to talk, but have a lawyer.... YOU CAN. That last part was the only real change. Bush's fault? Depends on if you see a problem with cops wasting their time asking question that you just won't answer.

Your land can be taken by whatever company thinks they might like to use it for their business--if they have the right friends.

I hate to disabuse you on this one, but there were no Bush appointee's on this one, unless you count Souter (Bush Sr.)... and he turned liberal after his appointment. You can actually thank the liberal judges for Kelo v. City of New London. The majority judges were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Dissenting were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. So much for Bush on that one too.

Second Amendment changed to--Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as the government sees fit.

Actually, that ruling took AWAY the governments right to infringe on the Second Amendment as they see fit. Since what it did was over turn a ban by the government. But don't let facts stand in the way of your little speech. For taking away the governments right to ban guns as they see fit, you can thank Bush indeed since both of his appointments were in the majority decision. I know I heartily thank Bush for this one, as do quite a few liberal gun owners. Incidentally, all the hard liberals wanted the government to be able to ban guns at will... the were in the dissenting opinion.

Oh, and tell the right that they can't have a federal army... see how well that flies.

Actually, as a right-winger and Thomas Jefferson fan... I would love this provision. Put it back to the State level.

Actually, that ruling took AWAY the governments right to infringe on the Second Amendment as they see fit.

#8 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-06-01 04:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Have you lived your whole life with this backwards thinking? The original second amendment said the right of militias to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. That means the government did not have the right to infringe. The government NOW has the right to infringe as it sees fit. Since you never post a link to your bullshit--I will show how it is done. This is the opinion of the court. The opinjion starts out explaining how the court has always had the right to infringe.

There was never a time in American history when every male citizen was expected to grab his gun and protect the government. Their opinion is based on a false history. Militias were never defined in such a way---until recently.

The right to keep and bear arms is a liberal concept. I support suc a right.

I am still wondering how you can have more votes counted in a precinct than people who came out to vote?

I know, I know, it helped Franken so the leftards have kept quite on this one. Of course if it had helped Coleman then they would be all upset and about a billion post would have been place here on the DR by the commies.

"the commies"

LOL!

Have you lived your whole life with this backwards thinking? The original second amendment said the right of militias to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. That means the government did not have the right to infringe.

Lets see who is really backward here...

The government BANNED guns in D.C. This was literally an infringement on the Second Amendment as the government saw fit.

The Supreme Court overturned that ban. In other words, they told the government that they can't do it as they see fit.

Seems that YOU are the one that has it backwards.

Now about the other infrigements... The Supreme Court has allowed infringements on protected rights in cases where exercise of that right causes an unnecessary or unreasonable danger to the public. Such as the limitation on the Second Amendment that keeps you from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

So in otherwords, according the Supreme Court, the government may NOT infringe on rights as they see fit. They may only do so in limited instances when exercise of that right would endanger the public unreasonably.

BTW... if the right to keep and bear arms were a liberal concept as we understand liberalism today, then why is it that it is the conservatives that typically fight for this right, and the liberals that keep trying to restrict it or ban it?

If you were for this right so much... why is it that you constantly speak out against guns and have advocated banning them?

If there were no guns, there wouldn't have been any crime. I doubt two guys with knives would have tried this against ten people. Guns were the catalyst to the crime.

#107 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-05-06 03:05 PM

How come if the 2nd Amendment clearly states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

the 'militias' aren't well regulated and my right to bear arms like bazookas or tactical nukes have been infringed?

There was never a time in American history when every male citizen was expected to grab his gun and protect the government. Their opinion is based on a false history. Militias were never defined in such a way---until recently.

Bullshit, Bob. Here, why don't you read about our history. For much of this countries early history, we were protected EXACTLY by male citizens being called to grab their gun "and protect the government". That is how the Revolution was fought, that is how the many battles were fought after the revolution. After each engagement the militia was disbanded.

Further more, your idea that "militia" meant a standing army, and that the people weren't intended to have an individual right to bear arms is faulty. The milita WAS the individual people in arms as this article from the US government's Army History website points out. See the parts I have bolded.

The militia issue was also central to the shaping of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: the right to keep and bear arms. If the founding fathers recognized the centrality of freedom of speech, the press, and assembly, they also made clear those freedoms would only remain secure if the people could keep and bear arms as an ultimate check on the power of the government. The Second Amendment has
112

been much politicized since its adoption as part of the Bill of Rights, but there is no question that the architects of our government believed that the people in arms- the militia- were the final guarantors of our freedom. Any subsequent reinterpretations of that amendment must start with the fact that our leaders, fresh from their experiences in the Revolutionary War, relied on the militia as the centerpiece of our national military establishment. The concept of the militia and the right to bear arms are inextricably joined.

AU... the militia, as my last link proves, was intended to BE the people. Not a standing army.

Notice that to the founding fathers, there was a difference between "miltia" and "army". An army could be made up of a militia... but a militia both then AND now meant an army of "a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency".

Further more, your idea that "militia" meant a standing army, and that the people weren't intended to have an individual right to bear arms is faulty.

#16 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-06-01 06:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

I never said a militia meant standing army. Why must you lie? I never said that people weren't intended to keep and bear arms. Why must you lie?

I said I agreed with and support the right to keep and bear arms.

I said there was never a law or concept of every male capable of service of getting his gun and going off to defend the country. I said that was never the concept of militias. Ever.

Question, Bob: Exactly how do you propose that there be no guns if you support the Second Amendment?

I don't propose that there be no guns. Why must you lie? I say guns aren't good for defense, and any bad guy worth a fig could take your gun and stuff it up your ass. Actually he would give you the option ofstuffing it up your ass or having your nuts blown off just before your head goes.

I am for the right to keep and bear arms because I am a liberal. People have the right to be stupid. I try to educate them from time to time. It rarely takes. Few understand the concept of the bad guy moving first. Drive by shootings are great examples. Many of the people shot were armed. Their guns didn't save them. The bad guy moved first with serious intention.

I am for the right of people to speak that I disagree with also--can you understand that? I think pople have the right to keep and bear arms---I just think people over rate its usefulness in actual defense, and believe there are more effective ways ofd protecting yourself than a gun.

Moomanfl

Link to that part in our history where every man was supposed to grab his gun and protect the country. Link to how troops were raised in the revolutionary war. It should have been easy with every person capable of service from 13 colonies grabbing their gun and heading off to war. What history book was that in?

Waiting on you.

;-)

I never said a militia meant standing army. Why must you lie? I never said that people weren't intended to keep and bear arms. Why must you lie?

Bullshit, Bob. When I quote Richard Henry Lee in a previous thread pointing out that the militia WAS the people, you SPECIFICALLY said that He and I were wrong.

Moomanfl

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

AGAIN--pay attention to the sentence if the two are interchangeable.

A well regulated people, being necessary to a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I think Richard Henrty Lee is mistaken as are you--the two are not interchangeable, and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. If they had in mind what you say they had in mind---the sentence would read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

OR

"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That isn't what they wrote and that isn't what they meant.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-03-19 04:57 PM

I say guns aren't good for defense

Google [burglar shot killed] and say that again. LOL

Why do you always choose to ignore facts, bOoB?

Here is the link for your quote:

I don't propose that there be no guns. Why must you lie?

Well then... I guess 9/11 means nothing to you. I guess it is acceptable to you that 30,000 people a year die so you can own a gun if you want.

After all that was YOUR criteria in your own words as I quoted you above... link provided in that post.

No... of course those words along with blaming all those crimes on guns and saying there would be no crimes if there were no guns means you are just PEACHY with the Second Amendment.

You are such a laughably dishonest moron, Bob.

Link to that part in our history where every man was supposed to grab his gun and protect the country. Link to how troops were raised in the revolutionary war.

Hrm... Minute Men... Revolutionary War... let me Google that for you.

Fixed link for the quote in last post:

Anyway... My dad is in town today and I will be going out with him later. Need some sleep. Later peoples.

#21 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-06-01 07:02 AM | Reply | Flag

Highlight te part where I say a militia means a standing army. Highlight where I say I don't think people are intended to have the rigt to bear arms. I say what the Constitution says---I don't give my opinion on whether a militia is a standing army (it isn't)---and I don't give my opinion on whether people should have the right to keep and bear arms (they should). It is your inability to read and comprehend the writen word and put it in context that proves your low IQ.

No... of course those words along with blaming all those crimes on guns and saying there would be no crimes if there were no guns means you are just PEACHY with the Second Amendment.

You are such a laughably dishonest moron, Bob.

#24 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-06-01 07:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

I have never said if there were no guns there would be no crimes. I was specific in naming each crime where there would have been no crime if there had been no guns. Why must you lie? Guns are necessary--they just aren't very good for defense in most cases. Guns are an offensive weapon. Great for and terrorists and bad assed bad guys who just shoot your ass and take your gun as a souvenier. They suck at defense---the bad guy moves first and if it isn't some 14 year old kid or some unarmed latinos with their back to you, you will be in trouble. You have a gun in a holster--the bad guy has a gun in a holster---the bad guy pulls his gun and points it at you and says--hands against the wall---what do you do?

Minute men were not every man capable of service. They were a minority of the eligible men capable of service.

You lose as usual.

You lose as usual.

I love it when the contender appoints himself the judge and declares himself the winner. LOL

If the circus is in town Minnesota could just appoint one of the clowns Senator. It's not like there'd be any difference if Franken or Coleman was in the Senate.

Congress subscribed to the prevailing view that the first line of national defense should be a "well-regulated and disciplined militia suffi-
ciently armed and accoutered." Its reluctance to create a standing army was understandable; a permanent army would be a heavy expense, and it would complicate the struggle between those who wanted a strong national government and those who preferred the existing loose federation
of states. Further, the recent threats of the Continental officers strengthened the popular fear that a standing army might be used to coerce the states or become an instrument of despotism. The English experience with General Oliver Cromwell and his military dictatorship in the mid-seventeenth century still exerted a powerful influence over the political ideas of the mother country and the former colonies.
General Washington, to whom Hamilton's committee turned first for advice, echoed some of these fears. He pointed out that a large standing army in time of peace had always been considered "dangerous to the liberties of a country" and that the nation was "too poor to maintain a standing army adequate to our defense." The question might also be considered, he continued, whether any surplus funds that became available should not better be applied to "building and equipping a Navy without which, in case of War we could neither protect our Commerce, nor yield that assistance to each other which, on such an extent of seacoast, our mutual safety would require." He believed that America should rely ultimately on an improved version of the historic citizens' militia, a force enrolling all males between eighteen and fifty liable for service to the nation in emergencies. He also recommended a volunteer militia, recruited in units, periodically trained, and subject to national rather than state control. At the same time Washington did suggest the creation of a small Regular Army "to awe the Indians, protect our Trade, prevent the encroachment of our Neighbors of Canada and the Floridas, and guard us at least from surprises; also for security of our magazines." He recommended a force of four regiments of infantry and one of artillery, totaling 2,630 officers and men.

I would rather have a car antenna I can't get to than the gun in my holster.

--Buffalo_Boob

Most if not all of those lambasting the MN Supremes would be arguing for a thorough, measured review, insisting on getting it right over getting it done quickly, if the positions of Coleman and Franken were the reverse.

You have a gun in a holster--the bad guy has a gun in a holster---the bad guy pulls his gun and points it at you and says--hands against the wall---what do you do?

#29 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I put my hands against the wall as my buddy across the room, also wearing a gun, shoots the bad guy for me.

For G-d sakes. How much longr are theyb gonna say screw it and apoint someone to the US Senate seat

Lary

I fully support the right to keep and arm bears.

"the bad guy pulls his gun and ... "

And I've already put two in the body and one in the head. The BG doesn't shoot IDPA.

They shouldn't count any absentee ballots. Thoes people in the service overseas shouldn't have any say in the running of the US. They are all just a bunch of young, snot nosed conservatives.

NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE really knows who got the most votes..

And regardless of who this group decides on, the losers are going to feel cheated..

I think Franken is an idiot.. but he may have won.. who knows.. But then again.. it could be Coleman..

The much touted recount that showed Franken the winner was not without controversy.. finding Franken ballots in people's cars.. heck, why would any reasonable person question that?

Either Franken or Coleman is going to be seated.. but is going to be despised by at least half of the state's voters.. Its not a great situation.

finding Franken ballots in people's cars.. heck, why would any reasonable person question that?

#41 | Posted by nmg_no

That turned out not to be true, and even the Coleman camp backed off on it.

"That turned out not to be true, and even the Coleman camp backed off on it."

There you go again, SanAn, with your liberal-biased facts.

There you go again, SanAn, with your liberal-biased facts.

#43 | Posted by Danforth

I know, I know. And I didn't even mention that over 60% of Minnesotans want Coleman to concede.

We are getting more efficent...9 votes decided the 2000 Presidential race.

"And I didn't even mention that over 60% of Minnesotans want Coleman to concede."

Sixty seems to be a touchy number for the Republicans.

not by a judge who "discovers" a new right.

#7 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2009-06-01 04:42 AM | Reply

Woyld that include a right to privacy?

The United Stated Constitution never gave the right to keep and bear arms to individual citizens. It took activist judges to do that, The founders never thought to give such a right, because such a right was considered as GIVEN. Of COURSE people had the right to keep and bear arms--there was NEVER any DOUBT about such a law. Almost as many people had guns as had knives, and the Constitution never gave citizens the right to carry knives either--why should it? Such a right was a GIVEN.

What the citizens didn't have the right to do was to form State Militias. Citizens did NOT have the right to band together to defend their State from a strong Central government. That is what the second amendment allowed. It was never an individual right--until acitivist judges read it and disregarded the words and put in their own meaning of what they wanted the words to say.

The founders had no reason to put in the right to bear arms since such a right was a GIVEN--why would they put such a GIVEN right in the Constitution. Citizens already had that right---it would be like putting the right to carry a sword in the Constitution.

But the Founders wanted to protect the Citizens of a State from a Strong Central government, so the Founders set up a possible opposing force to such an occurance. They gave the States the right to protect its citizens from a strong central government by allowing the States to form their own State Militia for the protection of its citizens, and the State Militia would be made up of citizens of that State.

So--the Founders put together the second amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Mlitia--defined as a well regulated group of men. A Militia was not an individual--it was a group of men. In individual was a militia member. The Founders didn't want groups of armed men roaming the countryside with no regulations.

being necessary to the security of a free State--Here it tells what the well regulated militia was created to do--protect the security and freedom of a State (Notice the capitalized State), from not only a strong central government, but from all threats--even threats from its own citizens--like Kent State.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Looking at the opinion of this court and preceding courts, it looks like the Courts think the Founders were STUPID for saying such a thing. The opinion of the court is that ---Of COURSE such a right may be infringed--the Founders never intended for individuals to have cannons and warships---the Founders simply didn't know what they were talking about. See for yourself.

#48 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-01 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Failed constitutional law.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
~James Madison

Righties like Ngo Mahn Ngo grasp at straws like no one knows who won when the fact is that just about everyone knows Franken won. The Republican game surely is to delay the inevitable as long as possible to prevent seating a sixtieth Senate Demo and assure passage of anything progressive. herm

Ahhhhh Jesus fucking Christ not this again Buffalo Bob. The Second Amendment protects the rights of the collective INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms.

Larry

Larry Mohr

It does now. As stated. That wasn't the point of the post though was it. Like you would know.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
~James Madison

#49 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-06-01 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag

No kidding. You must think you are saying something new. However--they didn't put such an obvious right in the Constitution since it wasn't necessary--just like the right to carry knives or clubs or fishing poles or horse whips. Since you didn't read my post--or if you did, were incapable of grasping the concept of the words---fuck off little mind.

It does now. As stated. That wasn't the point of the post though was it. Like you would know.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-01 01:53 PM | Reply

It has always said the same thing. It protected the COLLECTIVE INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms. Your argument that it does now is rubbish.

Larry

#6 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Hey Boob you sound like a right wing radical today....

You can be interrogated without a lawyer. You don't have it exactly right and this decision is something Obama pushed for

Your land can be taken by whatever company thinks they might like to use it for their business--if they have the right friends. Well known as a position of the leftist members of the SCOTUS

Second Amendment changed to--Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as the government sees fit. Well done. Spoken like Chuck Heston

The Bush legacy will continue to tear America' heart out for decades.

uh.....the Bush legacy ?????

It protected the COLLECTIVE INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms. Your argument that it does now is rubbish.

Larry

#54 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-06-01 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

You may be correct Larry. Use your giant brtain to excplain the phrase--Well regulated Militia---and how that applies to the individual right to bear arms.

You may know more than me. Use your giant knowledge to expain what the phrase "protection of a free State has to do with the individual right to keep and bear arm.

Your Super genius brain probably has the capability of explaining the phrase--Shall not be infringed---and why all the infringements are put on the right to bear arms.

Then your giant brain could easily compare what you say about those phrases and what I say about those phrases, and show me to be a little mind like Zitchy.

Waiting on you loudmouth.

;-)

"Woyld that include a right to privacy?"

That depends. Are there any part of your belongings or person you wouldn't want subject to unreasonable search and seizure?

One of the problems with the Second Amendment is it guarantees something based on INTENT, but does not help to provide a litmus test for peoples' intentions.....anyways,how can always clearly know someone's intent?

Basically the 2nd Amendment is saying: individuals owning guns is OK becuae we need for the states to have militias to protect themselves against foireign invaders and possibly to protect against the central Govt. getting too strong and going martial law on everyone.

So If I want to own a gun, but my actual intent is because I am going to shoot up liquor stores and steal the $$ and booze, how are you going to regulate me? Because when the 2nd Amendment granted me my weapon in the first place, it did it under the assumption that my intent is to help protect society with said weapon. How is society to know or trust what my intentions are?

AU... the militia, as my last link proves, was intended to BE the people. Not a standing army.

#17 | Posted by moomanfl

That may have been true in the 18th Century, but we don't have a militia - regulated or otherwise.

8roper

How does the phrase "well regulated" fit into your concept of the second amendment?

How about explaining it like I did---phrase by phrase---in post #48.

Bob-

Shut up.

The voters choose Al Franken and the recount verified that. Then it went to a three judge panel which upheld that. What do these bozo's on the MN Supreme Court want?

#1 | Posted by JoeLabey at 2009-05-31

the voters choose franken....I guess that includes the places that he won..EVEN if there were more votes counted THAN VOTERS REGISTERED........

sure makes sense to me.....

"Actually, by first count the voters chose Coleman."

Which was suspect since Franken was up by over 1000 votes until the last 5 preceints were counted in the wee hours of the morning after. What was odd is Fox wouldn't ever acknowledge Franken's most of the nite lead but ABC did...

I kinda admire the state for being this careful and taking so long. It makes me think they really are trying to do what is right.
Either of these candidates will be yet another tick on the body politic, so who really cares?

Coleman won the final vote, Franken won the selective recount and probably the election. It worked in the Governors race in Washinton a few years ago, almost worked in Florida in 2000, so why not keep it going until you get the right results - screw the voters and their pathetic choices!

The Democrats, in Florida and a few other states, tried to keep the Military vote from being counted due to the fact 'If you're stationed in a combat zone' your mail is sent without the franking (post-date) because you have free mailing priveledges.

The claim was therefore you couldn't determine when it was mailed, and was upheld in several states.

Let'em fight and die, or be wounded, but let'em vote? HELL NO!

This remains a problem today, are we waiting for another close election to disenfranchise a few hundred thousand other soldiers?

WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO COUNT THE OVER 4000 BALLETS THAT ACORN HAS?

Bolshoi or American Repertory?

this will never end if i was either one of these guys ---why don't rhey jus duke it out -or hold another election with all the time and money put out thru this ordeal another election would be faster and cheaper
jasman

"...why don't rhey jus duke it out -or hold another election"?

That surely would NOT be another Ali-Frazier bout, but why another election when they just had a perfectly good one. One righie insists some Franken precincts had more votes than voters, but I propose that this was a Repub try to put Coleman in. Why is my guess not as good as that one? herm

herm
you of course live in a world where the left gets then benefit of the doubt and the right is always evil-have you not learned from -burris and naders situation -the sense of wrong doin haunted and still haunts bush from fla 2000-
jasman