The Dems and 60 votes

Quote:

---

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Minn. court rules for Franken in Senate fight

Jun 30 02:37 PM US/Eastern
By BRIAN BAKST
Associated Press Writer

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Democrat Al Franken be certified as the winner of the state's long-running Senate race.
The high court rejected a legal challenge from Republican Norm Coleman, whose options for regaining the Senate seat are dwindling.

Justices said Franken is entitled to the election certificate he needs to assume office. With Franken and the usual backing of two independents, Democrats will have a big enough majority to overcome Republican filibusters.


Coleman hasn't ruled out seeking federal court intervention.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the earliest Franken would be seated is next week because the Senate is out of session for the July 4 holiday.

Franken, a former Saturday Night Live star making the leap from life as a left-wing author and radio talker to the Senate, planned a news conference later Tuesday and didn't immediately comment.

Coleman's campaign didn't immediately return a call for comment. Nor did Gov. Tim Pawlenty, whose signature is required on the election certificate Franken needs to be seated.

Pawlenty, a Republican, has said he would sign the certificate if ordered to do so by the court. The court's ruling stopped short of explicitly ordering the governor to sign the document, saying only that Franken was "entitled" to it.

Coleman's appeal hinged largely on whether thousands of absentee votes had been unfairly rejected by local election officials around the state.

The unanimous court wrote that "because the legislature established absentee voting as an optional method of voting, voters choosing to use that method are required to comply with the statutory provisions."

They went on to say that "because strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting is, and always has been required, there is no basis on which voters could have reasonably believed that anything less than strict compliance would suffice."

---

It's done.. Sotomayer on the SC and the dems have 60 votes...:lmao

i'm still trying to find out what is so funny. do you get an extra $100 on your check or something?

he was an idiot back on SNL and he still is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

i'm still trying to find out what is so funny. do you get an extra $100 on your check or something?

---

GGA is too stupid and too much of an Obamaniac to understand what this means for our country. But there's no use in trying to explain it to him - just let him keep laughing.

This just sucks... No party should ever get 60 votes in the Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

This just sucks... No party should ever get 60 votes in the Senate.

---

They're just giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves. They're over reaching and ruining everything they touch. So hopefully, enough people will wake up and vote some of these bums out of office - starting with Harry Reid and Arlen Specter!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

GGA is too stupid and too much of an Obamaniac to understand what this means for our country. But there's no use in trying to explain it to him - just let him keep laughing.

---

I voted for Clinton in the primaries and was going to vote for Mccain until he selected Palin. I find it hilarious that you conservatives have been bitching about Obama since day one and you arre still losing ground. That's funny...

You have been hanging the economy around his neck thinking it will affect him but your short term view is wrong. The economy will improve and he will get all of the credit primarily because YOU have made the economy his and his laone..Now that's funny..

its gonna be a long 18 months

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

It's done.. Sotomayer on the SC and the dems have 60 votes...:lmao

---

Yay team sport politics.

Cleansing by fire!

Getcha popcorn ready.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

I find it hilarious that you conservatives have been bitching about Obama since day one and you arre still losing ground. That's funny...

---

Funny that you think "we" are losing ground when many of Obama's personality supporters do not like his policies. Funny that you think "we" are losing ground when far-left governments world-wide are watching the pendulum swinging away from them.

Quote:

---

You have been hanging the economy around his neck thinking it will affect him but your short term view is wrong. The economy will improve and he will get all of the credit primarily because YOU have made the economy his and his alone..Now that's funny..

---

LOL, it's not short term. "We" have common sense and can easily see how his policies are doing nothing to improve the economy; mainly because improving the economy is not the objective of his policies.

The economy will improve? Really? What signs show you this? "We" have barely begun to see the collateral damage from this government party.

The very fact that you get enjoyment out of such a majority by the dems when "we" have an administration that has a very dangerous quick agenda for America (grow government, America be damned) because "your team" is winning speaks volume. Do not get caught up in that game. Step out of that and look at what is happening.

is it me or does franken look like dr bunsen?

As much as I hate the fact that Franken "won" - he really is the face of the Libs. A stupid, failed comedian who thinks he can now represent his adopted state. He's a bad joke - just like the rest of the libs!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

They're just giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves. They're over reaching and ruining everything they touch. So hopefully, enough people will wake up and vote some of these bums out of office...

---

I was thinking the exact same thing about 4 years ago. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Yay team sport politics.

---

Exactly.

It's like saying that a man who was editor of Harvard Law Review, was elected State rep, then US Senator and POTUS ...

.... never acheived anything in his life and has no executive experience.

One single party controls everything. It's bound to work this time.

Getting to 60 votes will be a little harder than most people are suggesting here.

Accelerated disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It's like saying that a man who was editor of Harvard Law Review, was elected State rep, then US Senator and POTUS ...

.... never acheived anything in his life and has no executive experience.

---

WOW! You mean you finally agree with us conservatives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

WOW! You mean you finally agree with us conservatives?

---

No. I'm pretty sure he's alluding to how utterly moronic you are. Just a hunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It's like saying that a man who was editor of Harvard Law Review, was elected State rep, then US Senator and POTUS ...

.... never acheived anything in his life and has no executive experience.

---

The point is, he has no executive experience, which should be a requirement for president in so many peoples eyes. There have only been two other presidents in our history with no executive experience. Luckily, they were good president.

You know what they say... Third time's the charm... and President Obama is already on the path to be the worse president in history.

List of United States Presidents and previous executive experience

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

WOW! You mean you finally agree with us conservatives?

---

On principle, no.

I've a skeptical bent.

Same rule of thumb holds for self-described liberals. I don't trust em. The first answer is almost always no. Resist all cant, right?

I don't trust you CS. Nothing personal. And for that matter, I don't trust me or my friends much either. Nobody is trustworthy, leastwise about so called facts; on almost any given question, all of us can be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The point is, he has no executive experience, which should be a requirement for president in so many peoples eyes. There have only been two other presidents in our history with no executive experience. Luckily, they were good president...

---

In so many peoples eyes. How poignant.

Emend the constitution if it's such an injustice to require that US Presidents be native-born and 35 years old.

Quote:

---

You know what they say... Third time's the charm... and President Obama is already on the path to be the worse president in history.

---

http://www.yell.com/images/Sticky/ps...lairvoyant.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

In so many peoples eyes. How poignant.

Emend the constitution if it's such an injustice to require that US Presidents be native-born and 35 years old.




http://www.yell.com/images/Sticky/ps...lairvoyant.jpg

---

I would like to see such an amendment. I see you started using a statement I have used several times. In essence, if you don't like a part of the constitution, amend it. Remember though, I never said he wasn't legally disqualified because of his lack of experience, but that I thought it should be required. I was clearly stating an opinion.

Fair enough, WC.

God forbid we should somehow deprive you of your own opinion, wrong as it is likely to be. :hat

:lol

There is not much evidence in this forum to support the conclusion that the campaign to suppress WC's opinion has been at all effective.

In fact, most of the evidence is against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

As much as I hate the fact that Franken "won" - he really is the face of the Libs. A stupid, failed comedian who thinks he can now represent his adopted state. He's a bad joke - just like the rest of the libs!

---

LOL. And the "face" of the Republicans is either Arnold --a bad actor who can barely formulate a sentence -- or Rush, a fat addict who has never worked a day in his life.

I do think it is funny and sort of embarrassing how easily it is for celebrities to get elected in this country. But that's not a party issue. That's an American issue. Apparently, we are so stupid we will vote for people just for being on TV or in People magazine, regardless of their actual qualifications.

Right, which is why it's preferable to limit the portion of our lives subject to the whims of the unwashed, reality show viewing masses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I would like to see such an amendment. I see you started using a statement I have used several times. In essence, if you don't like a part of the constitution, amend it. Remember though, I never said he wasn't legally disqualified because of his lack of experience, but that I thought it should be required. I was clearly stating an opinion.

---

So what type of executive experience are you talking about? I assume you would have to be fairly clear if you are going to amend the constitution. So tell us WC... define executive experience...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

There have only been two other presidents in our history with no executive experience.

---

whoop! whooop!

My bullshit factoid detector is going off. This sounds suspiciously like a talk-radio factoid retread, and not actual personal knowledge.

See, I was gonna let him have that, RG...

You can't get too caught up in the swirl of errata. In such a target rich environment, you can get distracted quite easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

whoop! whooop!

My bullshit factoid detector is going off. This sounds suspiciously like a talk-radio factoid retread, and not actual personal knowledge.

---

Whoop whoop...........really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

whoop! whooop!

My bullshit factoid detector is going off. This sounds suspiciously like a talk-radio factoid retread, and not actual personal knowledge.

---

All you have to do is read the link I posted along with that statement.

And no, Mr. I'll jump to conclusions. I came up with that with my own search on "executive experience."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

So what type of executive experience are you talking about? I assume you would have to be fairly clear if you are going to amend the constitution. So tell us WC... define executive experience...

---

That's too hard to say. Actually, I've been thinking it over. I don't want to see such a change to the constitution. Considering only three people to date have become president without executive experience, the public seems to make rather good decisions there for the most part. In the case of President Obama, I don't believe he would have ever become president if he wasn't black. We had too large of a population that voted that way for that reason alone. White guilt from Caucasians, and Black pride. That is something that will not happen to the same degree again now that it's happened once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

LOL. And the "face" of the Republicans is either Arnold --a bad actor who can barely formulate a sentence -- or Rush, a fat addict who has never worked a day in his life.

I do think it is funny and sort of embarrassing how easily it is for celebrities to get elected in this country. But that's not a party issue. That's an American issue. Apparently, we are so stupid we will vote for people just for being on TV or in People magazine, regardless of their actual qualifications.

---

Boy are you ever wrong! There is no way in hell that Arnold is the face of the republicans - that "R" after his name means absolutely nothing! And Rush is not the face of the republicans, but he is one of the faces of the conservative movement. However, you're wrong about him also. He's had plenty of jobs - in fact, he'll be the first to tell you how many times he was fired before he became a radio talkshow success. And he hasn't always worked in radio - he once worked for the Kansas City Royals.

And - he's no longer fat or an addict - so you FAIL on all accounts!! :lmao

Quote:

---

In the case of President Obama, I don't believe he would have ever become president if he wasn't black.

---

Sigworthy.

Quote:

---

We had too large of a population that voted that way for that reason alone. White guilt from Caucasians, and Black pride. That is something that will not happen to the same degree again now that it's happened once.

---

Good thing it didn't enbolden them, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

Boy are you ever wrong! There is no way in hell that Arnold is the face of the republicans - that "R" after his name means absolutely nothing! And Rush is not the face of the republicans, but he is one of the faces of the conservative movement. However, you're wrong about him also. He's had plenty of jobs - in fact, he'll be the first to tell you how many times he was fired before he became a radio talkshow success. And he hasn't always worked in radio - he once worked for the Kansas City Royals.

And - he's no longer fat or an addict - so you FAIL on all accounts!! :lmao

---

They are both entertainers..so how can one 'be like all democrats' and the other be 'one of the many' conservatives? Is this another one those hypocrital arguments you spout?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Sigworthy.

---

Have you scrolled down on my sig?

I agree with Wild Cobra - Obama would've never been elected if he'd been white. I guess half-white doesn't count since he looks black.

Wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Have you scrolled down on my sig?

---

nice lookin' partner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

nice lookin' partner

---

Sure is, and 100% natural USA grown. Just took that pic and a few others on 6/29.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Sure is, and 100% natural USA grown. Just took that pic and a few others on 6/29.

---

Is her belly as big as yours?

My default defeats yer sig, WC.

I'm good with whatever leering comments have been made thus far; I don't want a real clear picture and that's no reflection on your sweetie WC, but just my personal preference.

Ok?

There's enough towelsnapping and ripe underwear in this forum already, don't you think?

What do we need more locker room antics for? Doesn't this belong in The Club? It's boring and tacky, WC.

Quote:

---

It could also be construed as disrespectful to your sweetie. Is she cool with it, Boss?

---

If it's a picture of a woman, does she live on a flaglot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

What do we need more locker room antics for? Doesn't this belong in The Club? It's boring and tacky, WC.

---

Well, notice the two who are acting all juvenile over it. I made it so one had to scroll down the pic wasn't in anyone's face. I only pointed it out after your "sigworthy" comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4cc

i'd say he's been very successful at comedy and politics

---

No doubt! 'Stuart saves his family' was hilarious!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

It's done.. Sotomayer on the SC and the dems have 60 votes...:lmao

---

Not really, even with their majorities their having a difficult time passing major legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

See, I was gonna let him have that, RG...

You can't get too caught up in the swirl of errata. In such a target rich environment, you can get distracted quite easily.

---

Actually, he turns out to be right, according to the link he provided to a wiki article on the subject.

Very unlike WC to actually look up facts about things before having an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, notice the two who are acting all juvenile over it. I made it so one had to scroll down the pic wasn't in anyone's face. I only pointed it out after your "sigworthy" comment.

---

The question remains though: Does she know you are posting pictures of her on the internet, face or no?

I personally found it to be a bit tacky, but wasn't going to say anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Very unlike WC to actually look up facts about things before having an opinion.

---

LOL...

Like always, you misunderestimate me. I may be wrong at times, but I very rarely state something as fact without pretty solid evidence. I more often misspeak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The question remains though: Does she know you are posting pictures of her on the internet, face or no?

I personally found it to be a bit tacky, but wasn't going to say anything.

---

Does it matter? I removed it because of you crybabies. And yes, I had her permission. When I get a new ink cartridge, I'm making her prints of that one and the other eight I took of her. They are nice in 8 megapixil format. That was a 20% size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL...

Like always, you misunderestimate me. I may be wrong at times, but I very rarely state something as fact without pretty solid evidence. I more often misspeak.

---

Please tell me that was done intentionally. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Please tell me that was done intentionally. :)

---

Yes, I did that purposely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, I did that purposely.

---

Thank goodness! :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Right, which is why it's preferable to limit the portion of our lives subject to the whims of the unwashed, reality show viewing masses.

---

I am liking your thinking more and more recently. That, or this is clearly a tongue-in-cheek reference to Mencken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Does it matter? I removed it because of you crybabies. And yes, I had her permission. When I get a new ink cartridge, I'm making her prints of that one and the other eight I took of her. They are nice in 8 megapixil format. That was a 20% size.

---

Self-ingratiating Forum

Never closes.