I'm Good Enough, I'm Strong Enough, and gosh darnit the people of MN like me

[davesaint]

The Minnesota supreme court has ended the recount and declared Al Franken as the winner of the senate campaign.

So if you are following Norm Coleman's career, he has now lost elections to Al Franken AND Jesse "The Body" Ventura. Maybe he should stop running for office.


Dave

[I_luv_saber]

Rep for thread title!

[thereom4]

And it only took seven months. Awesome.

[treehugginfencer]

I am thanking The Universe for allowing us a majority sufficient enough for us to go forth unchecked and pass legislation that will save Mother Earth and all her children!

[Bayou Bum]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640687950076679.html

How Franken steals the election by changing the rules. Typical democrat policy!

[Philistine]

{snip} Typical democrat policy!

Interesting. Here the democrat policy was carried out by a unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court, made up of a majority of Republican appointees.

Damn those Democrats!

Here's the actual Decision, which was clearly dictated by the DNC....

--Philistine

[keith]

....unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court....

Mind control. How else can you explain the unanimity of the decision. This is America dammit

[telkanuru]

http://online.wsj.com/article/sb124640687950076679.html

how franken steals the election by changing the rules. Typical democrat policy!

"more in opinion"

Try the "News" section next time.

[Inquartata]

Interesting. Here the democrat policy was carried out by a unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court, made up of a majority of Republican appointees.

Hmm. So...if a right-leaning court acts "for" a Democrat, they are being fair; but if they act "for" a Republican, they are "stealing the election"...

Shall we play Name the Fallacy?

[telkanuru]

Would only be true if they were the exact same court and the situation was exactly the same.

Nice try, though.

[jeff]

I read the WSJ editorial in question, and can only smirk at them - considering how they robustly supported the Supreme Court decision in 2000, and rejected claims of election stealing in 2004 (Ohio had disputes that got little air).

So, if we want to play the "it all depends on whose ox is Gored" game, we can look at the WSJ's position on the rule of law based solely on whether it helps or hinders their candidate.

[Hauptman]

Hmm. So...if a right-leaning court acts "for" a Democrat, they are being fair; but if they act "for" a Republican, they are "stealing the election"...

Shall we play Name the Fallacy?

So which fallacy are you committing by taking his quote entirely out of context?

Unless, of course, you feel it logical that "typical Democrat policy" is being implemented by the unanimous vote of a group of Republican appointees.

[Inquartata]

Would only be true if they were the exact same court and the situation was exactly the same.

Why?

Nice try, yourself.

Unless, of course, you feel it logical that "typical Democrat policy" is being implemented by the unanimous vote of a group of Republican appointees.

No, I feel that in both cases the courts probably acted in good faith, in accordance with what they believed to be the law. All that differs is the inconsistent characterizations certain outside organizations and persons of a particular political persuasion choose to impose onto the decisions.

It's the inconsistency of the observers that causes me to look askance, not the decisions.

[Hauptman]

No, I feel that in both cases the courts probably acted in good faith, in accordance with what they believed to be the law. All that differs is the inconsistent characterizations certain outside organizations and persons of a particular political persuasion choose to impose onto the decisions.

Exactly, there was no fallacy in the response to the "typical Democrat policy". It merely illuminated the illogic of that attempted smear.

[telkanuru]

Why?

Nice try, yourself.

Well, if you take two different incidents and come to two different conclusions, that's not actually a double standard.

[Inquartata]

Indeed?

So if I punch you in the nose, and call that assault...and then I punch Hauptman in the nose and claim that that's NOT assault...either (1) that's a double standard, or (2) those are not "two different incidents". I don't think I've missed a possibilty there, have I?

Which are you alleging?

[Hauptman]

Indeed?

So if I punch you in the nose, and call that assault...and then I punch Hauptman in the nose and claim that that's NOT assault...either (1) that's a double standard, or (2) those are not "two different incidents". I don't think I've missed a possibilty there, have I?

Which are you alleging?

If you punch me in the nose, I call that battery.

But I never knew you had such a violent nature.

[telkanuru]

Indeed?

So if I punch you in the nose, and call that assault...and then I punch Hauptman in the nose and claim that that's NOT assault...either (1) that's a double standard, or (2) those are not "two different incidents". I don't think I've missed a possibilty there, have I?

Which are you alleging?

Of course, since you have the exact same incident occurring twice. If, however, you look at me quizzically and call it assault and punch Hauptman and call it assault, you're just making **** up.

[Inquartata]

And you're kindly providing me with a guide to making s*** up, apparently...

So, uh, thanks, but...I'll stick with my own examples, if you don't mind.

[telkanuru]

So, uh, thanks, but...I'll stick with my own examples, if you don't mind.

Right, because we wouldn't want to be using an analogy that accurately portrayed events. That would just be wrong.