|
|
| Minnesota (400005) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (400005) | |
Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009 It appears that Al Franken is going to be "certified" as the winner of the Minnesota Senate race. While lawsuits will likely follow, in cases such as this posession becomes 9/10ths of the law....I think it's impossible for any of us here to have a complete understanding of what went on in the recount rooms so I'm not looking to debate whether particular ballots should or should not have been counted, but there is clearly a disturbing trend at work and that trend smells bad. In the last three major recounts -- 2000 Florida Presidential, 2004 Washington Senate and 2008 Minnesota Senate -- the ultimate winner was of the same political affiliation as the state Attorney General. In 2004 and 2008, the ultimate winner "overcame" an election night deficit to win based on the recount. In all three cases, there were/are allegations that political influence was used and that calls on whether or not to include particular ballots were not made impartially. Who out there has the brilliant suggestion so that these situations are avoided in the future? |
|
|
| (400006) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 13:04:53 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. What could be done in the case of Minnesota is to adopt a runoff rule...here, the third-party candidate got 437K votes, which is 3 orders of magnitude and then some more than the margin of victory.However, in this case, the judges deciding the election should have favored Coleman if trends held, as they were mostly Republican. The real question to ask is: Why did Coleman lose so many votes to Dean Barkley, the third-party candidate? As for Franken, he will probably serve only one term; 57 percent of Minnesotans didn't want him. |
|
|
| (400018) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 13:26:02 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. The MN count strikes me as exceedingly carefully done. What's not clear to me is who decided not to count the 700 (give or take) ballots that the Coleman camp now wants counted, and why are they different from other ballots that were counted.I see no problem with Coleman suing to get those ballots counted (since right now no one knows how they'll lean). It's even quite likely that a decision on the validity of those ballots will be made in a non-political fashion. Certainly the state AG has no role in that decision. So I think we're near the end, and it's an end that any reasonable person can support. If the court decides to count those remaining ballots, and if they swing the election to Coleman, then Coleman is in. If the court decides the ballots should not be counted, or if they are counted and don't swing the election, then Franken is in. It would be dumb of the Senate to try to seat Franken before that final court challenge is settled. Of course, any state can decide to require a runoff if no one gets a najority. But you can still have the same kind of close race in the runoff. |
|
|
| (400022) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 13:30:24 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 13:26:02 2009. Agreed. |
|
|
| (400023) | |
Re: Secretary of state in 2000 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 13:32:21 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. "the ultimate winner was of the same political affiliation as the state Attorney General"The 2000 election was decided by the Florida Secretary of State, who was later rewarded by her own Party with a good stab in the back. Having given the election to George Bush, she was then considered expendable. |
|
|
| (400027) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 13:39:18 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 13:04:53 2009. The real question to ask is: Why did Coleman lose so many votes to Dean Barkley, the third-party candidate?How on earth is that the real question to ask in a discussion of fairness of recounts? |
|
|
| (400056) | |
State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 15:50:36 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. I have no idea what makes these 654 ballots less acceptable than any other ballots that did get counted, but the state court just said they should not get counted.The Coleman camp says they will contest this decision, though I don't understand who is left to contest the decision with. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-against-coleman-2/?hp |
|
|
| (400059) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 15:54:28 2009, in response to State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 15:50:36 2009. I don't think this is appealable to the federal circuit so the Coleman camp is stuck unless than can bring up a new issue. |
|
|
| (400070) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Mon Jan 5 17:06:15 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. it's called a stolen election. Picking ballots out of the trash, or the backseat of peoples cars. And I hear the NYTimes reported that they were counting some twice.While in some counties in the US, if you were a service member with an absentee, they refuse to count them. Banana republic this country is going |
|
|
| (400077) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:00:37 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 13:26:02 2009. those 700 ballots are ballots which were PROPERLY rejected, and come from areas with heavy Coleman support. If they are counted, they could add significantly to Coleman's vote totals.OTOH, if they are counted, it is likely that coleman can successfully counter with thousands more similarly rejected votes, and end up gaining further. |
|
|
| (400078) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:01:08 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:00:37 2009. In that second sentence, it should read FRANKEN can counter with thousands more similarly rejected votes. |
|
|
| (400079) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:02:01 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Mon Jan 5 17:06:15 2009. No such events actually occurred.Go back to praying to your President Palin. |
|
|
| (400080) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:03:08 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 15:54:28 2009. Coleman has a lot of issues to bring up, and they all appear to be equally baseless. |
|
|
| (400081) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Mon Jan 5 18:05:17 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:02:01 2009. We should be so lucky. At least she doesn't stand there and give us bad or sad news day by day. What type of hope and change is that?I'd say this is a joke, but I guess that's why we have comedians in the senate now. I gues there is change, I remember when it was just snobs and racists. |
|
|
| (400082) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 18:33:53 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:00:37 2009. those 700 ballots are ballots which were PROPERLY rejectedDo you happen to know why? |
|
|
| (400083) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 18:35:05 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:02:01 2009. No such events actually occurred.Careful. You do know it's antisemitic to call him delusional, don't you? |
|
|
| (400084) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 18:37:05 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 13:39:18 2009. I don't see anything fishy about this recount, however...which makes that question become irrelevant, at least to myself. |
|
|
| (400086) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 18:39:02 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Mon Jan 5 18:05:17 2009. If you're not going to wish the next President OBAMA the best, then I suggest you move to another country. |
|
|
| (400089) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:53:05 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 18:33:53 2009. Essentially, all rejected absentee ballots were sorted into five piles. There are four characteristics which could disqualify a ballot, and if a ballot were to have any disqualifying traits, it would be placed into a pile of the ballots disqualified for that trait. If a previously rejected ballot were not to fall into any of those four groups, it was placed into the fifth pile which contained the falsely rejected ballots. The ballots Norm Coleman has sued about were in one of the four properly rejected groups. |
|
|
| (400090) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 18:57:05 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:03:08 2009. Correction ... "Coleman has a lot of issues." Sentence ends there. :) |
|
|
| (400092) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 19:09:31 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 18:57:05 2009. This is good. All the Democrats on the board think Coleman's appeals are baseless. All the Republicans think there is some funny business going on.I think it is hard not to believe that there are some shenanigans at work here. There are districts where they are now counting more total votes than the number of people who actually voted. How on earth is that possible? |
|
|
| (400093) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 19:13:51 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 19:09:31 2009. All of the Republicans...except for the Republican judges who are ruling in favor of Franken. |
|
|
| (400094) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 19:15:00 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 19:09:31 2009. If we accept the Bush/Gore ruling, then this is one of those STFU moments for Coleman. But then again, heh. So here you have an independent who has no use for either of the other major parties and somehow I end up pigeonholed.We could of course go back to 2000 and Florida and 2004 in Ohio and play that all out again, but in both precedents, the one "officially certified" by the state ended up in office. Therefore ... moo. :) |
|
|
| (400096) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 19:19:31 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 19:15:00 2009. If we accept the Bush/Gore ruling, then this is one of those STFU moments for Coleman.No. That card was played in 2004 against Dino Rossi. Among the election-rigging conspiracy theorists, that score was even before 2008 came along. Only the most rabid lefties actually believe Ohio 2004 had any kind of issues (and I give you that label as a term of endearment my friend...). CG |
|
|
| (400097) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 19:20:09 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 19:13:51 2009. Which of them post here? |
|
|
| (400100) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 19:26:36 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 19:20:09 2009. Oh here...I thought you were talking about Minnesota.Other states should be taking notes about how this recount was handled; I expected Coleman to prevail, and I'm a bit shocked that Franken prevailed. |
|
|
| (400101) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 19:29:42 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 19:19:31 2009. Heh. Ain't no liberals up here, bears ate 'em all in the 60's or Cheech and Chong would have moved east. :)Dunno the Dino Rossi story, I kinda lost interest in politics years ago. But for a "one time decision" it's amusing how often the good old "Bushgore" thing plays now. As far as Minnesota goes, don't live there, none of my business how they run their show. The only thing I note from any of this is that it sounds as though Coleman is *really* grasping at straws from some of the later arguments I've seen. Usually an electoral complaint is a bit more clear cut. But then Minnesota isn't New York. I could cite chapter and verse if it happened here. :) |
|
|
| (400104) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon Jan 5 19:42:59 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. Hooray! |
|
|
| (400109) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 20:07:41 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 19:09:31 2009. All the Democrats on the board think Coleman's appeals are baseless.I never said that. I just wondered who there was left to appeal to if the state's highest court has turned him down. There are districts where they are now counting more total votes than the number of people who actually voted. How on earth is that possible? Do you have a reputable source for that? |
|
|
| (400110) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 5 20:11:08 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. NITPICK: In Florida the AG was a Democrat, however the key official was the Secretary of State, and we all know who that was. |
|
|
| (400111) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 20:12:25 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 19:29:42 2009. I don't know about grasping at straws.Not to inject algebra into the equation, but if X is greater than Y then it would seem impossible to have X votes counted in a district where only Y people actually showed up to vote -- yet that is happening in 25 districts in Minnesota. Things look statistically improbable from 30,000 feet as well. On election night, the race was a statistical dead heat -- Franken 1,211,359 vs Coleman 1,211,565. -- basically 50/50 The final tally was: Franken 1,212,431 vs Coleman 1,212,206 -- again, basically 50/50 1,713 votes were added in the recount. Those added votes broke 63/37 in favor of Franken. How statistically unlikely is it that the added votes would have a breakdown so skewed from the overall total without political meddling? |
|
|
| (400113) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 20:14:20 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 5 20:11:08 2009. Yep. I think I crossed up my AG's and Secretaries of State in a few places here. |
|
|
| (400115) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 5 20:27:23 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 13:04:53 2009. First, why do you say that Coleman lost to Dean Barkley? Maybe it was Franken who lost more votes to Barkley and in his absence Franken would have sailed to victory.Second, a Senate term lasts SIX YEARS. Election results in one year have little bearing on the next election, except that there's probably an incumbent advantage. |
|
|
| (400118) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 20:30:39 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 20:12:25 2009. Good question if those are the numbers. All I was going with is that similar has happened in other elections (including NY) and has also gone numerically the other way where hundreds or thousands of ballots turned up missing. Just so ya know where I'm coming from, shens happen in every election even though those at the polling places are able to count their balls and come up with the same number repeatedly, somehow when those numbers go upstream all sorts of black holes and wormholes form.Taking an issue to court however requires PROFF (and proof isn't a bad thing either) and oddly, when Coleman has appeared before the courts he didn't have the proff. Didn't have the proof either and supposedly that's why they kept taking a cattle prod to him. I'll say this for Franken though I *despise* him as a comic, radio "host" and a politician - he seems to have avoided coming off like a crybaby ... and HE was behind for most of this saga ... Welcome to politics though, this is how the game is played. :( |
|
|
| (400120) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 5 20:34:24 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 20:12:25 2009. How statistically unlikely is it that the added votes would have a breakdown so skewed from the overall total without political meddling?AIUI, they were largely absentee ballots. Absentees vote strangely. |
|
|
| (400123) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 20:43:29 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 5 20:34:24 2009. Also, they were LARGELY from a few areas.The fishy thing to me is... WHY WERENT THEY COUNTED TO BEGIN WITH? |
|
|
| (400157) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 22:45:05 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 20:30:39 2009. The thing that stands out most about this recount is that just about every change to the voting favored Franken -- both the seemingly legitimate and the head-scratchers, like...Some judge found 30 absentee ballots in his car a few days after they were due; and 133 vote cards are mysteriously "lost" in one district -- so they used the original vote tallies that included the 133 vote cards even though they can't confirm that they ever existed for the recount. |
|
|
| (400158) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Parkchester (East 177th St) on Mon Jan 5 22:45:56 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 19:26:36 2009. Remember, this is Minnesota, the same state that sent a former professional wrestler to the governor's mansion and the first Muslim in US history to the House of Representatives. Both within the past 8 years. In a state with such a run, I consider anything possible (and thus am not shocked about Al Franken's run.) |
|
|
| (400159) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 22:46:22 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 20:43:29 2009. WHY WERENT THEY COUNTED TO BEGIN WITH?Well some judge claims that he had accidentally left 30 of them in his car... |
|
|
| (400160) | |
Correction Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Parkchester (East 177th St) on Mon Jan 5 22:47:37 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 19:26:36 2009. Remember, this is Minnesota, the same state that sent a former professional wrestler to the governor's mansion and, for the first time in US history, a Muslim to the House of Representatives. Both within the past 8 years. In a state with such a run, I consider anything possible (and thus am not shocked about Al Franken's run.) |
|
|
| (400161) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jan 5 22:50:06 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 22:45:05 2009. However, what incentive would Republican judges have for ruling against Norm Coleman? |
|
|
| (400163) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 23:01:43 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 22:45:05 2009. One thing I learned years ago about politics is that there are no losers - if things don't turn out the way you want, you can sue. But of course when politicos sue, it's *never* "frivolous" ... in Coleman's case though one has to bear in mind that the judges are largely of his own party and they keep tossing him out. The Minneapolis newspaper was printing examples of the various ballots tossed out by both sides, asking their readers to play along and decide for themselves based on the rules. It was rather amusing since "what the voter intended" was rather obvious at times even though they were rejected. Others were accepted but violated miniscule technicalities. Such is the nature of polls in most states.If you don't win, you try to win on a technicality. But you have to hit up the court with a valid argument and evidence. Looks like Coleman was unable to play the game properly ... |
|
|
| (400169) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 23:11:57 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 20:07:41 2009. Do you have a reputable source for that?See this petition -- http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Other/2008%20Elections/Petition_for_an_Order_to_Show_Cause_A08-2206.44_.pdf I can't find the attachment that shows all 25 districts, but the petition cites a few specific instances. You can actually see the recount results at: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/statewide_recount_by_precinct_with_ab.pdf (Ramsey/Maplewood 6 is on page 66 of 94. |
|
|
| (400184) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 23:28:30 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 22:45:05 2009. Both of those claims have been thoroughly disproven.The 133 ballots are known to have existed, and 30 absentee ballots were never left in a car for any period of time. |
|
|
| (400185) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 23:28:57 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 22:46:22 2009. No, no judge ever claimed such. |
|
|
| (400200) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 6 00:30:06 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 19:09:31 2009. There are districts where they are now counting more total votes than the number of people who actually voted. How on earth is that possible?I had posted a link to an article describing how the very same thing happened in California. There was a software bug that erased previously counted votes without a trace. The problem occurred if a tally were interrupted. The numbers accumulated before the interruption would be erased by the later count. The reason the bug was detected was because the local elections board scanned all the ballots with a scanner and gave the images to any citizen who wanted them. More votes were found than the "number of people who actually voted according to the machine count," when the paper mark sense ballots were tallied again. The initial reaction was that some ballots had been scanned twice. The bug was discovered, when it was determined that no ballots had been scanned more than once. |
|
|
| (400234) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 6 02:49:27 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 22:45:05 2009. Some judge found 30 absentee ballots in his car a few days after they were due; and133 vote cards are mysteriously "lost" in one district -- Those claims were debunked a long time ago. The Coleman camp said so themselves. |
|
|
| (400236) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Tue Jan 6 02:52:56 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. fuck, senator Franken? "good going minnesota"... |
|
|
| (400237) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 6 02:56:39 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. This clinches the 60 Senate votes needed for passage of the EFCA.Can repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act be too far behind? More on HR 800, S 1041 |
|
|
| (400239) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 6 03:02:06 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by Grand concourse on Tue Jan 6 02:52:56 2009. Heh. After Jesse Ventura, it's a step in a saner direction. Not much of a step, but one nonetheless. :) |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|