GWK is resorting to my old trick of whip-turning the comments section to different topics. In the Lieberman post, he somehow drags poor Al Franken into the mix.
In the matter of Franken/Coleman, GWK may not be aware that it's a LEGAL REQUIREMENT that a recount be performed when the election is that close; and that the challenged ballots are reviewed by both sides and disinterested bipartisan observers. See Nate Silver for details. I know I know, it's so frustrating when the Democrats don't simply concede; after all, anyone who votes for a Democrat obviously meant to vote for a Republican. Still, that's how the game is played in Mary Tyler Moore country. Suck it up. By the way, "Dimocrat?" What are you, in grade school?When extremely suspicious bags of ballots are 'found' days & weeks after the election - in an election official's car-trunk, no less (forgot they were there!) - and ALL of them are for Franken, after he already lost the race, so that he can scream for a re-count, that doesn't serve the will of the people.
When Franken's OWN attorney's publically admit that he LOST the race and should concede, but Franken has Dimocrat Reid state that the House will look into the matter, that doesn't serve the will of the people.
If I get the chance tonight I'll tackle Prop 8, which I mistakenly referred to as Prop 9. Sue me! Or better yet, sue the Mormons.
11 comments:
I have no problem with a LEGAL recount, Sport.
What I have a problem with is when 'lost' ballots, or 'misplaced' ballots, which are marked 100% in favor of only ONE horse in the two horse race, suddenly 'turn up', well after the election is over and they are now allowed to be counted.
It's a mathematical improbability.
Or, when clearly marked ballots are challenged by the losing party as the voter really meant to vote for me - they just made a mistake.
Or, when a party says because someone voted for BO, and didn't mark my ballot choice as a (D) - left it unmarked - they clearly meant to vote for me too, as a (D).
All things the Franken party has done, so far.
If this was happening the other way around, I would state the same thing, without a doubt.
Let the will of the people speak, and quit interfering with the process.
I think you're failing to consider another option with those missing ballots - one is that Franken's team stayed up late and faked them all, then "found" them, but another scenario is that Coleman's people had Franken ballots skimmed off the rolls and hidden.
I post facts about Franken.
You post a wild imagination. And that's OK with you.
What about the will of the people, Piker? All costs be damned for Franken to win?
I'll start your Prop 8 post for you. What is your fantasy response to this factual article?
November 24, 2008 8:00 AM
Legislating Immorality
By the Editors
Last week in a Denver suburb, someone lit a Book of Mormon on fire and dropped it on the doorstep of a Mormon temple, presumably as a statement about the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California, an initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a move that may make gay-rights supporters’ heads spin, the incident is being investigated as a hate crime.
The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.
The wisdom of hate-crimes legislation aside, there is no doubt that a lot of hate is being directed at Mormons as a group. But why single out Mormons? And why now?
Dozens of church bodies — including the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian bishops of California, and a wide variety of evangelicals — supported the proposition. It’s also worth considering that, while gay-rights advocates cannot discuss same-sex marriage for more than 30 seconds without making faulty analogies to Jim Crow-era anti-miscegenation laws, some 70 percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8. While there have been a few ugly racist statements by gay-rights supporters, such vile sentiment has been restricted. Not so the hatred directed at Mormons, who are convenient targets.
To date, 30 states have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage, and in every state traditional marriage has come out on top. But somehow the fact that Mormons got involved during the latest statewide referendum constitutes a bridge too far? In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact.
There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not remarkably strident in its beliefs on the subject. So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.
Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs. Freedom of conscience, or diversity of belief, is the last thing the homosexual lobby will tolerate: In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn’t previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announced it had been browbeaten into doing so by New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights and the threat of litigation. The first 10,000 same-sex eHarmony registrants will receive a free six-month subscription. “That’s one of the things I asked for,” crowed Eric McKinley, who brought the charges against eHarmony.
Where do they go from here? Gay activists are already using the legal system to try to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church. If you believe that churches and synagogues, priests and rabbis won’t eventually be sued for their statements on sexuality, you’re kidding yourself. Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” A National Public Radio report on the conflict noted that if previous cases are any guide, “the outlook is grim for religious groups.”
Given their cavalier disregard for the freedom of conscience, it’s little surprise that the gay lobby is equally disdainful of democracy: They began pursuing legal challenges to Proposition 8 practically before they were done tallying the votes. Lamentably, the state attorney general defending the will of the people will be former Jerry Brown, the liberal former governor who was an open opponent of the measure and tried to sabotage it. The legal challenges will be heard by the same state Supreme Court that overturned California’s previous law forbidding gay marriage back in May. There’s a real possibility the will of the people will be spurned a second time, democracy be damned. They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.
Source: NRO
Creative, Piker. Unfortunately for your silly conspiracy theory, MOST of these so-called "found" ballots have been "found" in heavily controlled Democrat areas!
Personally, I can't imagine that anyone could support this loud-mouthed, uncouth, ignorant, hot-tempered, child-man for dog catcher much less the Senate.
Dude, politics is stocked to the brim with loud-mouthed, uncouth, ignorant, hot-tempered, child-men. If we stop putting them in office, we might as well move the entire legislative branch to a suite at the Washington Holiday Inn.
Daniel, I have to say that this is a perfect example of why I do not respect the morality of the left (that and they HAVE no morality).
Think about what you just said for a second.
You just said that we should NOT hold any politician to any standards of comportment or civility merely because we had politicians in that past that were like that, too.
Taken to the logical ends of your moral equivalence we should not be wary of a man that acts like Hitler. After all, man has voted for a Hitler in the past! Why not? The bar has already been lowered, so according to you we should not try to raise it again.
You have just argued to throw away ALL principles. All of them. Without question.
But, my guess is that your shrug of the shoulders for a leftist, nut like Franken would instantly turn to "outrage" if it were the GOP that was running a Franken type of scumbag! My guess is, that all of a sudden you'd be all worried that the tenor of the debate in the Senate would be lowered too much.
So, I propose that we put Ann Coulter in Franken's place. Why not? We've had uncouth types before. Why not again?
Dude, you gotta stop going for the Hitler analogy so often. And don't take my snarky response for a real desire for more ignorant senators. It's mistaking jokes for real positions that has made you guys underestimate Franken from the beginning.
Your argument hinges on the idea that everybody knows Franken is a crazy moonbat. I share no such opinion. He's a smart guy who also happens to be funny enough to make a living at it. He is farther-left than most, but Congress is a collective leadership body and can tolerate the extremes better than the presidency can.
Of course, he's been pretty hard on Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly over the years, and you guys have to demonize him to protect those two delicate flowers.
Smart guy?
Made a living at being funny?
Not.
Not.
Or were those snarky comments, as well,Piker, whoch I failed to understand?
I suppose "smart guy" is a matter of opinion, but perhaps you can tell me how Franken has made a living prior to his senate bid? 'Cause I heard it was from books and sketch writing and public appearances and stuff. Indeed, there may be a paper trail on this one.
Isn't being funny a matter of opinion, as well?
I guess some people will laugh at anyone, or anything. And that's where Franken was able to fill the void.
I never found him funny. Course, he is acting like a clown, these days.
Not a very funny, one, nevertheless.
Post a Comment