At least you’re honest.

What you quoted and what you linked to in the thread I was in in no way proves your point. And the fact that you won’t repost what you say you posted shows me you’re fool of shit.

Yes, I was wrong on certain things in the legal thread and I admitted that. But I wasn’t wrong on other questions I raised, which you conveniently ignored.

I, unlike you, will admit when I’m wrong. You’re wrong here and instead of admitting it or proving that you’re not wrong, you just go on some rambling thing about how liberals are idiots, blah blah blah.

Notice that I never make generalizations while I’m on here. I only deal with the people I arguing with. I don’t condemn all conservatives, just ones who are wrong in specific instances like you are in this one. So, keep playing your childish game if you like, but you’re wrong here and you’re not man enough to admit it. That, in my book, makes you a joke.

Have a good one.

I’m not going anywhere fellas.

Tom_Shipley on November 25, 2008 at 5:06 PM.

Oh :(

Tom_Shipley on November 25, 2008 at 5:06 PM

I proved it the other day, and you wouldn’t read the facts…
Then you took me on with a legal argument, and I cited several cases that stated you were dead wrong, and you still insisted on making a fool of yourself, even after obvious and overwhelming facts.
Now you are back to the other day, I am not going to keep spoon feeding you…I have told you that. You have received an education from me in politics and law.
I answered you, I linked, I quoted in both instances…but you won’t take facts, you link to dKos. I even showed where dKos has no credibility and they even admitted it, but you still think they are fact because you think I only stated one, when I stated 7 or so.
You, as I have stated time and time again, do not care abut facts…it means nothing to you.
Facts to a liberal is like kryptonite to Superman, as the saying goes.
So no matter what I link from the NYT, LAT, WSJ, Congressional Record, time and again…you will come back a day later and ask for it again….then you embarrass yourself by linking to dKOS and claim that is some kind of news agency…my God you have no shame, no sense of history, no opinion but what is fed to you by dKOS.
Why would I waste anymore time on someone who depends on dKOS for their news…in other words you are a hopeless liberal, that hangs around and we get to make fun of you and your links…like throwing peanuts to the organ grinders monkey…here catch…

chunderroad on November 25, 2008 at 4:57 PM

If I had known it was that easy, I would have posted that last one first…

If you’re such a legal scholar, you’ll know that each argument should be contested on its own merit. Claiming that the video I link to is invalid because that page links to “7 false stories” (without showing why any of these stories are “false”) is just about the most idiotic argument I’ve seen on here in a while.

You did better when you tried to claim only one of the shown ballots shows the “write in” area, but unfortunately the video shows the write in portion on four of the ballots, so that didn’t really work out for you.

Steve Z actually makes the best point about the video stating there could be a more logical reason for the challenge. Though, a signature issue doesn’t seem likely since they show that the reason for the challenge is intent.

There could be another explanation other than what the video evidence shows, but based on that video evidence, it really does seem like Coleman is challenging ballots that vote for McCain and clearly vote for Franken.

Now, I’ve asked you at least three different times to back up your claims with a link. You’ve so far failed to do so. I’m sorry, but if you can’t back up your arguments, then you’re just full of shit. End of story.

Buh bye!

So… yeah, you’re full of shit. Thanks for confirming. See ya!

If you can you can, if you can’t you can’t. But quite this BS about “i already posted it.” I never saw it. And if you did post it once, it should be hard for you to post again.

Tom_Shipley on November 25, 2008 at 3:14 PM

I have already spoon fed you…aren’t you the guy that made the ridiculous legal argument the other day? And then had to beg forgiveness, after I schooled you? The “free speech” one.
I won’t re-educate you on that either…
Please for your own good (however I think it is too late) don’t embarrass yourself with these kind of posts…I am trying to help you.

… I’m smart enough to realize that one false story…
Tom_Shipley on November 25, 2008 at 3:14 PM

But not smart enough to see that I linked about seven stories…like I have warned, don’t post, it makes you look foolish…you can’t tell the difference between one false story and 7 false stories. How the hell are you going to tell us Franken is right and Coleman is wrong….when you rely on a site that is full of lies, and you have to lie about the lies, youch, I am getting a headache just thinking about how you try to reason.
This is not math…in math a negative times a negative is a positive…so you think a lie times a lie is the truth, that must be it.
Tom, Tom, Tom,…whadda we gonna do wit u…

It probably will come down to the challenged ballots, because the recount so far has reduced Coleman’s initial margin by TWO MEASLY VOTES! Since both candidates have LOST votes from the initial machine count, Franken’s tale of “undervotes” being missed by the machines has been shown to be a myth. In such a case, a hand recount would INCREASE the vote totals for both candidates.

Since the number of challenged ballots by each candidate is about even, the result will depend on the relative validity of the challenges.

I’ve shown you ballots that team Coleman are challenging using this logic, now you do the same. Or at least show me where anyone in the Franken campaign has said they will challenge ballots using this logic. Or AT LEAST show me where any one on the Coleman campaign has accused Team Franken of challenging ballots based on this logic.

Tom_Shipley on November 25, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Except the only one in the linked article asserting that Coleman is using this “logic” is a Franken lawyer. Excuse us if we don’t take that as gospel.

The quickly panning video (which doesn’t always show the entire voting field) that you linked did include frivolous challenges, likely in response to the frivolous challenges that the Franken camp has been making.

However, the ballots in the video include ballots where the oval wasn’t solidly filled in- it’s more likely that they were challenged for this reason (weak though it may be) as opposed to the fact that they also happened to vote for McCain. There’s also the possibility that the voter signed the ballot, which would render it invalid.

Fixed.

No you didn’t. You claimed you did in a previous thread, but I don’t recall that. What I posted above is all that I’m aware that you posted. If you have other evidence, again, post it.

Franken has 1,250 lawyers working on his behalf…

And that means what exactly?

As for the Palin stuff, nice strawman. I never condoned those accusations, but I’m smart enough to realize that one false story (one that was rebuked by members of the site as you have pointed out) does not mean everything the site posts is false. Idiotic argument on your point.

If we show you one ballot like this, will you not post another word about Franken or Coleman?

No, but you’ll gain some credibility for yourself if you’re able to. Again, I challenge you to post any of the following:

I’ve shown you ballots that team Coleman are challenging using this logic, now you do the same. Or at least show me where anyone in the Franken campaign has said they will challenge ballots using this logic. Or AT LEAST show me where any one on the Coleman campaign has accused Team Franken of challenging ballots based on this logic.

If you can you can, if you can’t you can’t. But quite this BS about “i already posted it.” I never saw it. And if you did post it once, it should be hard for you to post again.

Tom_Shipley on November 25, 2008 at 1:22 PM

If we show you one ballot like this, will you not post another word about Franken or Coleman?

Again, you’re just wrong.

Tom_Shipley on November 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM

You posted a snippet of what I had taught you. I linked and quoted Franken and his attorneys.
Franken has 1,250 lawyers working on his behalf…
You linked a site that had these lies about Palin:
Palin Joined a Secessionist Political Party
Palin Supported a Nazi Sympathizer
Palin Wants Creationism Taught in School
Palin Was Nearly Recalled While Mayor
Palin Opposes Sex Education
Palin is the grandmother, and not the mother, of Trig Palin
Palin cheated on her husband Todd
Here are a few more dKos statements:
Now Daily Kos admits they look stupid publishing this rumor, this outright lie, admitting, at least in this instance, Daily Kos is an enormous fraud.

Flogging this rumor in light of what seems to be pretty solid counter-evidence is just squandering whatever credibility we have. In the words of Janor Hypercleats, ‘They’s laughin’ at you, boy.’ There is so much more that we could be highlighting regarding Palin; we don’t want that to be tarred with ‘from the same people who smeared Palin’s teenage daughter…

They even admit they are a fraud…yet you still adore them.
HAHAHAHAHA!!, yeah, Franken is a righteous guy, dKos say so…

Actually I was referring to Chuck Schumer’s comment that some political commentary is akin to pornography. I believe he was thinking of the Daily Kos. In fact, I’m sure that was his intent.

jeff_from_mpls on November 25, 2008 at 1:13 PM

We all know the Fairness Doctrine will apply to The Huffington Post, as well.

Accepting the Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award at a Creative Coalition gala in New York City on December 18, 2006, actor Sean Penn went on a rant calling for the impeachment of President Bush and insulting conservatives from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity. In the text of his prepared remarks, posted by The Huffington Post hours before he spoke, Penn said: So…look, if we attempt to impeach for lying about a blowjob, yet accept these almost certain abuses without challenge, we become a cum-stain on the flag we wave.

That was the least offensive of The Huffington House of Horrors. John Cusack, Alec Baldwin, etc. Barking Moonbats.