@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Well, to go on a bit of a tangent, was OJ really innocent? The court found that he was based on the evidence and the work of the lawyers. Did that make the "case closed"?
Would a discussion on opinions of th OJ case be a means to determine if he was innocent? No. The only discussion that matters would be one based on facts. In this case, the MANDATORY recount put Franken in the lead. The legal actions taken thereafter were initiated by the Coleman camp. That found Franken even more ahead.
Your opinion about Franken's lawyers using dirty tricks is noted, but irrelevant in the face that the numbers sided with Franken all along. Under what counting method would Coleman have won? I suspect, you will not be able to come up with a method. You are welcome to present it with numbers. Details. Be specific or don't bother.
McGentrix wrote:
Lets look back at Bush v. Gore. How long have the liberals whined and bitched about that? Hell, some people still whine about it today. The court made a ruling, does that make it "case closed"?
Actually, yes. It is a very closed case. In Gore's case, the numbers in FL didn't side with him by the method used in the state. The lesson to be learned is about how a state is transparent in their counting process. That lesson in FL has been applied in many states since 2000 both red and blue.
McGentrix wrote:
Simply because a court made a decision that is legally binding does not mean that fraud was not committed. It only means that the court did not find the evidence either compelling or conclusive.
In the case of the MN Senate race, the numbers are very conclusive. There is nothing to be compelled by. Franken simply won. This recount was always going to side with Franken. The only reason that it took this long is that the GOP funneled as much money as possible to delay him from getting to the Senate floor. The legal dirty tricks weren't committed by Franken's lawyers. Let's not forget that he had the disadvantage with a republican governor (who could have ended this after the Coleman's challenges were up, and a conservative MN supreme court.
McGentrix wrote:
Reading through the case in the link provided, I did not see a good reasoning for court to make some of it's decisions based on old precedent. I will continue to hold the opinion that Franken is a whiny bitch that shouldn't be a senator and I am sure you guys will continue to hold that opinion that he deserves the seat for no other reason then he is not a Republican. Great basis for being in the Senate and supporting someone with a poor political background.
Actually McGentrix, I think Franken deserves his victory because he had more votes.
Here.
T
K
O