[stupendousman]

Seems as though FOXNEWS has determined how Franken is getting all those new votes added to his totals. Outright cheating by the board of elections. I would laugh if it weren't so sad!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html

Someone please explain how this is anything other than illegal vote tampering by those in charge?

[Dork.]

How is it illegal? I'm curious.


How would you tally this ballot?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

How would you tally this ballot?

Clearly for Franken. Now, if he or she had written in "Lizard People FTW," then it would be a different story.

[The Crook]

Oh please, John Lott is your source?

He's fresh off the beat uncovering the great conspiracy among Minnesota election officials to swing the election to Franken? Let me know when a reputable news organization finds similar evidence of unfairness. I highly doubt it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Oh please, John Lott is your source?

He's fresh off the beat uncovering the great conspiracy among Minnesota election officials to swing the election to Franken? Let me know when a reputable news organization finds similar evidence of unfairness. I highly doubt it.

What specifically in the article are you disputing, or are you just engaging in one big "attack the messenger" fallacy? They show scans of specific ballots which were given as Franken votes when it's clear that the voter had no intention of casting a ballot for Franken.

They are linking directly from the results posted by the Minn. Star Tribune:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com...2-18&index=171

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

How is it illegal? I'm curious.

How is officially entering a vote for a candidate for an individual that the individual in question never intended to vote for, illegal? Um...because the voter already made his intentions known, and it's illegal to change a vote after the voter cast his vote?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Originally Posted by Dork. 

How is it illegal? I'm curious.

How is officially entering a vote for a candidate for an individual that the individual in question never intended to vote for, illegal? Um...because the voter already made his intentions known, and it's illegal to change a vote after the voter cast his vote?

I have no idea if that's even a law, but the point of the commission's exercise is precisely to determine the intent of the voter. You may not agree with their conclusions, but it wouldn't be "illegal" under this standard.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I have no idea if that's even a law, but the point of the commission's exercise is precisely to determine the intent of the voter. You may not agree with their conclusions, but it wouldn't be "illegal" under this standard.

If the commission does not set out accurately determine the intent of the voter, and it can be shown that they are doing just the opposite, I don't know how that can be "legal" under any standard.

[besson3c]

Okay, so how can you come to your own conclusions with such a small sample of ballots stupendousman?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the commission does not set out accurately determine the intent of the voter, and it can be shown that they are doing just the opposite, I don't know how that can be "legal" under any standard.

And with anonymous ballots, how would you propose to determine that the intent of the voter was different than what the commission decided? Some sort of...commission, perhaps?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so how can you come to your own conclusions with such a small sample of ballots stupendousman?

How many examples of incorrect ballot interpretation and inconsistent application of the rules in favor of Franken do you need? What would be a good statistical number based on the total ballots in question?

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And with anonymous ballots, how would you propose to determine that the intent of the voter was different than what the commission decided? Some sort of...commission, perhaps?

When you have access to the ballots, and a normal person can view the ballot and see that the methods being used are illegal, it shouldn't take more than a ruling by a judge to stop the illegalities.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What specifically in the article are you disputing, or are you just engaging in one big "attack the messenger" fallacy? They show scans of specific ballots which were given as Franken votes when it's clear that the voter had no intention of casting a ballot for Franken.

They are linking directly from the results posted by the Minn. Star Tribune:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com...2-18&index=171

That page doesn't appear to claim that the ballot was found to have been for Franklin. Am I missing something?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How many examples of incorrect ballot interpretation and inconsistent application of the rules in favor of Franken do you need? What would be a good statistical number based on the total ballots in question?

Comon man, use your head. There were millions of votes cast, and it has come down to an amazingly small difference. There is no way you can go over 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 1000 ballots and tell us what is going on. Even the commissioner is warning of premature projections because it is that close. In order for you to really make this statement you'll need to go over the thousands of challenged ballots one by one.

This is why we have workers diligently going over the challenged ballots and why we have packs of lawyers overseeing everything and challenging questionable ballots. This is why we have officials who have been working on this for over a month now. For you to sit back and tell us all that you know better than all of these people because you have some brilliant gut feeling is just plain dumb, really.

We all know that you have a thing against Democrats, but a lot of money and resources are being devoted into these challenges and recounting. You must trust that there are those like you who are absolutely committed to seeing that Franken doesn't win. You might even make the case that Coleman should be winning over more since he has put more resources into challenging more ballots.

If you are looking for a sort of saving grace here, you could make the argument that Democratic voters are dumb for screwing up more ballots.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When you have access to the ballots, and a normal person can view the ballot and see that the methods being used are illegal, it shouldn't take more than a ruling by a judge to stop the illegalities.

Admittedly, I haven't kept up with the race after November 7, but I see nothing illegal about the methods here. Perhaps you are talking about something else? Illegal conclusions? Fortunately, in our system recounts aren't trusted to the subjective insights of a single "normal person", or "ballot whisperer," if you will. All you can ask is that a standard set of criteria be applied fairly across all ballots. Frankly, I need to see more than an opinion piece by John Lott with selective examples to be convinced that the rules are being broken. If there is any validity to it, I expect there will be a lawsuit, but we're not there yet. Patience.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

How is it illegal? I'm curious.


How would you tally this ballot?

Personally, if I was a voting commissioner, I would throw it out as an "indeterminate" vote. However, if the voting commissioners *have* to choose which of the named candidates to award this vote, they gotta go with Al Franken. The same evaluative criteria would apply if the ballot said "Lizard People" and also had the circle filled in for Norm Coleman. In that case, the vote should be awarded to Coleman.


I want to say this seems pretty simple. But I think we have seen that when it comes to elections in this country, they are never simple. Someone tell me again why our nation is held up as an exemplary model of democracy? Eight years after the botched 2000 presidential election and we don't have any standardized procedures for voting that is both reliable and verifiable. We need a standardized, nation-wide procedure for voting so we don't have 50 different procedures in 50 different states with 50 different degrees of reliability. (I am still in favor of touch-screen devices that issue a printed receipt with full control of the voting mechanisms, hardware and software, in the hands of the government and not private companies. Something similar to what states do with gambling devices like slot-machines.)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That page doesn't appear to claim that the ballot was found to have been for Franklin. Am I missing something?

They have scans off all ballots. The scans are from the link I posted, which did not come from Fox News. The ballots are numbered. The story claims that the numbered ballot shown was found to be a vote for Al Franken.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Comon man, use your head. There were millions of votes cast, and it has come down to an amazingly small difference. There is no way you can go over 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 1000 ballots and tell us what is going on.

There was a small percentage of the entire vote which was challenged after the recount which Coleman won. Of that small percentage, in the story alone, there are something like a dozen examples of where the rules are being shown to be inconsistently followed or simply ignored in order to give Al Franken more votes despite their supposedly looking closely at each and every challenged ballot.

I'm not statistician, but I'd say that if you've got maybe 1000 challenged ballots, and you go through and can quickly find 10 that are screwy in favor of one guy, that's a pretty good sign that something is amiss statistically. Again, based on the number of challenged ballots, how many "errors" in Al Franken's favor would be required to show statistically that something was amiss?

If your argument is that the number of clear irregularities shown in the Fox News story isn't enough to show illegal bias in favor of Franken, how many irregularities would be required? How many examples of phony attempts to give Franken more votes are really needed? Is it okay to throw a couple of illegal votes Franken's way here and there, as long as you let Coleman have a few of the votes he actually earned? Really, what's the standard here?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Admittedly, I haven't kept up with the race after November 7, but I see nothing illegal about the methods here. Perhaps you are talking about something else? Illegal conclusions?

I think what you mean is that you see nothing illegal about the procedures used. In other words, a commission is appointed to decide. However, if the commission is ignoring the intent of the voters in order to give Al Franken more votes than he earned, then they are engaging in vote fraud, which is illegal. It doesn't matter if it's the candidate switching the votes via hacking into the voting boxes himself before the election, or his supporters changing votes after the fact when their candidate is down in votes.

Fortunately, in our system recounts aren't trusted to the subjective insights of a single "normal person", or "ballot whisperer," if you will.

Right. The Minnesota paper in question actually has the ballots where you can see, as I've outlined. I suspect that before the final votes are tallied, there will be a challenge to the illegal tactics taken by the Franken supporters. Let's remember, even before the commissions started, it was discovered that at least one Franken campaign worker was found to have lied and gotten themselves installed on one of the commissions that are supposed to be non-partisan and not for campaign staff.

All you can ask is that a standard set of criteria be applied fairly across all ballots. Frankly, I need to see more than an opinion piece by John Lott with selective examples to be convinced that the rules are being broken.

Again, which statements that Lott makes do you specifically refute? He shows several examples from actual ballots where the "set of criteria" was not "applied fairly across all ballots" and this is supposed to be just a sample of the errors in favor of Franken.

If there is any validity to it, I expect there will be a lawsuit, but we're not there yet. Patience.

I agree. I don't need "patience" however to point out what appears to be clear before any legal paperwork is filed.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not statistician, but I'd say that if you've got maybe 1000 challenged ballots, and you go through and can quickly find 10 that are screwy in favor of one guy, that's a pretty good sign that something is amiss statistically.

You're correct -- you're not a statistician.



(What's the margin of error on a poll? And what is it on an election?)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There was a small percentage of the entire vote which was challenged after the recount which Coleman won. Of that small percentage, in the story alone, there are something like a dozen examples of where the rules are being shown to be inconsistently followed or simply ignored in order to give Al Franken more votes despite their supposedly looking closely at each and every challenged ballot.

I'm not statistician, but I'd say that if you've got maybe 1000 challenged ballots, and you go through and can quickly find 10 that are screwy in favor of one guy, that's a pretty good sign that something is amiss statistically. Again, based on the number of challenged ballots, how many "errors" in Al Franken's favor would be required to show statistically that something was amiss?

If your argument is that the number of clear irregularities shown in the Fox News story isn't enough to show illegal bias in favor of Franken, how many irregularities would be required? How many examples of phony attempts to give Franken more votes are really needed? Is it okay to throw a couple of illegal votes Franken's way here and there, as long as you let Coleman have a few of the votes he actually earned? Really, what's the standard here?

How on earth would 10 ballots allow you to conclude that the thousands are screwy a particular way? The rest could be screwy favoring either candidate, unless you think there is some sort of conspiracy to screw up ballots a particular way? How can you come up with a projection after looking at 10 ballots? You have to go through the entire lot of them, as it could be that those 10 ballots literally decide the election either way. This is where your gut feeling falls short, and this is why Stephen Colbert has a career right now.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

and this is why Stephen Colbert has a career right now.

Have you seen the bit with him and Willie Nelson from the Christmas special? Google it if you haven't, it's pretty funny.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think what you mean is that you see nothing illegal about the procedures used. In other words, a commission is appointed to decide. However, if the commission is ignoring the intent of the voters in order to give Al Franken more votes than he earned, then they are engaging in vote fraud, which is illegal. It doesn't matter if it's the candidate switching the votes via hacking into the voting boxes himself before the election, or his supporters changing votes after the fact when their candidate is down in votes.



Right. The Minnesota paper in question actually has the ballots where you can see, as I've outlined. I suspect that before the final votes are tallied, there will be a challenge to the illegal tactics taken by the Franken supporters. Let's remember, even before the commissions started, it was discovered that at least one Franken campaign worker was found to have lied and gotten themselves installed on one of the commissions that are supposed to be non-partisan and not for campaign staff.



Again, which statements that Lott makes do you specifically refute? He shows several examples from actual ballots where the "set of criteria" was not "applied fairly across all ballots" and this is supposed to be just a sample of the errors in favor of Franken.



I agree. I don't need "patience" however to point out what appears to be clear before any legal paperwork is filed.

Now you are starting to wander and lose your focus. At first it was about the ballots, and now it is about the people and the process.

You would have thought that you would have learned from the disappointment of relying on wishful thinking and gut feelings in the November election.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Have you seen the bit with him and Willie Nelson from the Christmas special? Google it if you haven't, it's pretty funny.

Yeah, I saw it!

Strangest Christmas special ever

[Timo]

the whole specious intent of this thread, embedded in its inflammatory title, is laughable

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think what you mean is that you see nothing illegal about the procedures used. In other words, a commission is appointed to decide. However, if the commission is ignoring the intent of the voters in order to give Al Franken more votes than he earned, then they are engaging in vote fraud, which is illegal. It doesn't matter if it's the candidate switching the votes via hacking into the voting boxes himself before the election, or his supporters changing votes after the fact when their candidate is down in votes.



Right. The Minnesota paper in question actually has the ballots where you can see, as I've outlined. I suspect that before the final votes are tallied, there will be a challenge to the illegal tactics taken by the Franken supporters. Let's remember, even before the commissions started, it was discovered that at least one Franken campaign worker was found to have lied and gotten themselves installed on one of the commissions that are supposed to be non-partisan and not for campaign staff.



Again, which statements that Lott makes do you specifically refute? He shows several examples from actual ballots where the "set of criteria" was not "applied fairly across all ballots" and this is supposed to be just a sample of the errors in favor of Franken.



I agree. I don't need "patience" however to point out what appears to be clear before any legal paperwork is filed.

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/200..._lott_misleads

[OldManMac]

the whole specious intent of this thread, embedded in its inflammatory title, is laughable

Is the op Orion27's twin brother?

[besson3c]

Who wants to wager guesses as to how stupendousman thought the Florida 2000 recount went?

I often wonder what would have happened had Gore won. I mean, a potted plant would have been better than Bush. Mind you, I'm sure that potted plant would have made a few amendments, but I wouldn't mind hailing mighty potted plant or pledging allegiance to potted plant if that meant no Bush... Also, why most our choices be confined to either a bush or a plant?

Losing focus is fun!

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Personally, if I was a voting commissioner, I would throw it out as an "indeterminate" vote. However, if the voting commissioners *have* to choose which of the named candidates to award this vote, they gotta go with Al Franken. The same evaluative criteria would apply if the ballot said "Lizard People" and also had the circle filled in for Norm Coleman. In that case, the vote should be awarded to Coleman.

Exactly. We do not know the rules, and I'm absolutely certain that Fox News is NOT the source we should trust with discovering those rules.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Someone tell me again why our nation is held up as an exemplary model of democracy? Eight years after the botched 2000 presidential election and we don't have any standardized procedures for voting that is both reliable and verifiable. We need a standardized, nation-wide procedure for voting so we don't have 50 different procedures in 50 different states with 50 different degrees of reliability. (I am still in favor of touch-screen devices that issue a printed receipt with full control of the voting mechanisms, hardware and software, in the hands of the government and not private companies. Something similar to what states do with gambling devices like slot-machines.)

We are the example for a number of reasons. As badly as we bork everything up from time to time, we still do it better than just about anyone else, and we do it consistently better than everyone. A standardized system of determining who wins an election is a lofty goal, considering that the Constitution puts the burden on individual states, and simply expects those states to handle the issue. Since no single system has been shown to be superior to all others (and no system has been shown to be proof from tampering and fraud) it would seem that "market forces" should push the adoption of those systems that are easiest to manage and least vulnerable to fraud.

And I'd also suggest you pay a bit of attention to history before you suggest that putting "full control" of electronic voting machines in the hands of any government entity; even the venerable lever-style voting machine has been corrupted, not by some shady company out for political profit, but by (on a number of occasions and in a variety of jurisdictions) local political machines... Having some completely independent agency that evaluates voting procedures and machines is probably a better way to handle that, but I don't know how you could get there.

[Dork.]

I think a ham sandwich would have done a better job than a potted plant, even if that would have lead to more pork coming out of Washington....

I know that a ham sandwich would do a better job at making voting machines than the current crop of vendors. I realize how difficult a problem it is -- it's more difficult than making an ATM machine because you need to capture the voter's intent accurately and verifiably without any paper trail that can identify the votes of individual voters. But someone has to be able to do it! (And designed in an open fashion, so we can all be sure there are no gremlins under the hood....)

[besson3c]

I really like the idea of open source software voting machines. Maybe it's just a matter of making something good enough to compete with the current commercial products so that the states decide to use them for the next election?

[kobi]

With the FBI now investigating Coleman over illegal campaign funds, I find it interesting that he's going to pay for his legal defense with campaign funds?.

Anybody else see the irony in this?

Can anyone say Coleman's the next Ted Stevens?

Why can't Republicans run anybody besides crooks? Oh that's right it's because their Republicans; being a crook is a pre-requisite to joining the GOP.

[kobi]

Here's a interesting article that Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight.com wrote on Nov 23 projecting Franken winning by 27 votes.

Stupendous, again you can't beat the math. No matter what conspiracy you guys try and come up with.

Here's Franken's answer to Coleman's petition over the disputed ballots.

Here's Nate Silvers report debunking all the Dr. Lott-Fox News conspiracy theory, that Stupendous likes to grandstand.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Wait a sec, so this ISN'T counted a vote for Coleman:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxg.../Picture+6.png

Yet all these are counted as Franken votes?
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/FrankensXs.html



This is a Franken vote?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxg...h/FvO16,44.png

And yet, this is a vote for no one?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxg.../Picture+5.png


Not counted for Coleman??
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxg...r+Coleman).png


Yeah, sure. No cheating going on here. Stupendousman made it all up. Remember: if it doesn't benefit a Democrat, It's a conspiracy!

Bring in an independent board from somewhere else and do a fair recount.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Wait a sec, so this ISN'T counted a vote for Coleman:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxg.../Picture+6.png

Yet all these are counted as Franken votes?
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/FrankensXs.html



This is a Franken vote?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxg...h/FvO16,44.png

And yet, this is a vote for no one?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxg.../Picture+5.png


Not counted for Coleman??
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxg...r+Coleman).png


Yeah, sure. No cheating going on here. Stupendousman made it all up. Remember: if it doesn't benefit a Democrat, It's a conspiracy!

Bring in an independent board from somewhere else and do a fair recount.

They look at the entire ballot before drawing their conclusions, not just the U.S. Senator portion. Ways in which the voter marked other sections of the ballot can help them decide what an X over a filled in oval means (for example, if the voter did that everywhere then that was probably their intent; if they didn't do it anywhere else, then it may mean they intended to change their vote in that section). In some cases, the intent is clear, but the voter left an "identifying mark" (like their signature) so by law the reviewers have to declare it for "no one" due to voter error. Do you know the actual guidelines the review boards are operating on when they look at the ballots? I don't. So I'm not going to pretend to review individual ballots online.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/200..._lott_misleads

Jesus.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

They look at the entire ballot before drawing their conclusions, not just the U.S. Senator portion. Ways in which the voter marked other sections of the ballot can help them decide what an X over a filled in oval means (for example, if the voter did that everywhere then that was probably their intent; if they didn't do it anywhere else, then it may mean they intended to change their vote in that section). In some cases, the intent is clear, but the voter left an "identifying mark" (like their signature) so by law the reviewers have to declare it for "no one" due to voter error. Do you know the actual guidelines the review boards are operating on when they look at the ballots? I don't. So I'm not going to pretend to review individual ballots online.

Apply whatever set of standards consistently, not in favor of one candidate over another. One can see from these examples, that there are some clear inconsistencies. And most of the examples presented show how other votes were filled in- the disputed ballots are clearly being interpreted by differing standards. (Just look at the first example of Franken X votes- no other choices are marked that way, and the Coleman not counted is marked exactly the same way. )

When it's this close, bring in another review board from elsewhere with ONE set of standards for tallying the votes. Otherwise, it does look like there's something fishy is going on, from many of these examples. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to a completely independent review of the ballots if they truly care about fair elections. Or is that only a ruse when the candidate people want benefits?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

(Just look at the first example of Franken X votes- no other choices are marked that way, and the Coleman not counted is marked exactly the same way. )

Are you talking about the first ballot of these? http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/FrankensXs.html On the first Franken ballot, the voter X'ed the McCain/Palin choice in the same manner as the Franken choice, so my best guess is that the reviewer determined that it was intentional (click through to the full ballot).

Quibbling on a message board over individual ballots is pointless unless we know exactly the criteria that the reviewers are using. Otherwise you can't say whether or not they are being applied consistently, can you? Lott's piece broadly defines some of the criteria, but not specifically enough to grade individual cases.

Keep in mind that both sides have lawyers looking over the shoulders of the reviewers, looking for reasons to object.

Further, if you read the link I posted earlier in the thread, it appears that some of the more egregious ballots that Lott identified as for Franken were actually correctly counted for Coleman.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Jesus.

Nope. Not on the ballot and not written in. No votes for Jesus.



I kid... As noted by SpaceMonkey, we're just wasting our breath without knowing the rules under which these ballots are being evaluated. I personally believe that looking at the whole ballot is crucial, because it helps to see how the rest of the ballot was marked. Having taught college-level classes, I can assure everyone that people don't bother to read the instructions for how to "bubble in" entries on this sort of form.

[Dork.]

[Chongo]

This the 2004 Washington State Gov's race all over again.

[besson3c]

Dork.: why would you vote for somebody who is not even a U.S. citizen?

[SpaceMonkey]

I heard his birth certificate is suspect, too. Something about his father not being listed on it...

[besson3c]

Yeah, his paternity is really suspect...

[Timo]

From today's New York Times:

So, Will it Be Senator Franken?
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Al Franken reportedly now leads the Minnesota Senate race by 48 votes, according to the latest numbers from the Secretary of State’s office. The counting is not over, but it’s winding down.

There are still decisions to be made about absentee ballots, and about claims that some votes were counted twice.

It’s too early to say whether Mr. Franken or incumbent Senator Norm Coleman will win, but one thing is becoming clear. Minnesota is pretty good at running elections.

more: http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/20...nator-franken/

[stupendousman]

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/1...-of.html#links

[besson3c]

We can get into posting links and sharing our gut feelings about all of this, but ultimately this thread is not going to go anywhere. There is no way any of us can really know how clean and fair the recount has been. It's also not at all surprising that the Republicans think that Franken is playing dirty, and vice versa.

[BadKosh]

It's IMPORTANT for the Democrats to have as many comedians in office as they can. Nobody is laughing though....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It's IMPORTANT for the Democrats to have as many comedians in office as they can. Nobody is laughing though....

I guess it is important for the Republicans to have at least three professional actors in office too. Is there a point to this? This is the state that elected a former WWF wrestler to governor - a self-identifying economic conservative none the less...

[kobi]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It's IMPORTANT for the Democrats to have as many comedians in office as they can. Nobody is laughing though....

Yes!! This is important. As it's the only way to deal with all the raping and pillaging the Republicans have done the last eight years. Bin Laden should be taking clues from the Republicans on how to destroy countries, just look at what they have done the last eight years not only to Iraq be to America as well.

Once again, the Dems will have to clean up the mess like we did after Hoover,Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H.W.Bush and now Georgie. You have thought that America would have learned by now, but the uneducated (Republicans) do have a right to their own political party. It's just too bad the educated (Democrats) have to suffer while there in office.

[besson3c]

kobi: "too bad" and "they're in office"