I’m Good Enough, I’m Smart Enough, and Doggone It, the Minnesota Supreme Court Likes Me. This election may have been a virtual tie, but Al Franken swept the Minnesota Supreme Court today. The Court ruled that Franken should be certified as the winner of the state’s Senate race — rejecting a challenge by Republican Norm Coleman. With Franken, the Democrats will have the votes to overcome any filibuster (if you include the two independents).
On election night, Coleman was ahead by a margin of 206 votes out of more than 2.9 million votes. After the recount, Franken led by 225 votes.
Coleman’s hopes were pinned on thousands of absentees votes that were rejected by election officials, but the Supreme Court found that those voters failed to satisfy the conditions set out for such voting.
On the substantive due process issue, the court ruled:
We conclude that our existing case law requires strict compliance by voters with the requirements for absentee voting. Thus, we reject Coleman’s argument that only substantial compliance by voters is required. Having rejected this argument, we also conclude that the trial court’s February 13 order requiring strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting was not a deviation from our well-established precedent.
Because strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting is, and has always been, required, there is no basis on which voters could have reasonably believed that anything less than strict compliance would suffice. Furthermore, Coleman does not cite, and after review of the record we have not found, any evidence in the record that election officials required only substantial compliance in any past election or any official pronouncements that only substantial compliance would be required in the November 4, 2008 election. Nor does Coleman point us to the testimony of any voter who neglected to comply with the statutory requirements for absentee voting in reliance on either past practice or official assurances that strict compliance was not required.
At oral argument, Coleman posited that because of the increased use of the absentee voting method, it should now be treated as a right, not a privilege. But that is a policy determination for the legislature, not this court, to make. Indeed, Coleman‟s counsel acknowledged during oral argument that Coleman cannot claim that any voters changed their behavior based on the alleged substantial compliance standard.
It is difficult to argue with the Court’s opinion, which is well-written and well-based. There is no satisfying conclusion here for everyone. Coleman’s supporters have a right to be bitter. A couple hundred votes put the result on an almost arbitrary basis. I have long believed that there should be an automatic re-vote when candidates (both presidential or congressional) fail to receive a majority of votes. With the two most popular candidates, the election is likely to produce a majority favorite and avoid most such razor-thin results. While it is possible to still have close races, it is less likely.
Coleman has conceded the race.
Here is the ruling: OPA090697-6030
For the story, click here.
Step in what, exactly, Sil? The proper response to your inability to shift tactics? Well, yeah, I guess I did step in that. With both feet too. At least it smells better than what’s on your shoes, sport. Hmmm. That smells like ineptly deployed propaganda! Which strangely enough smells just like your original allusion and the inside of your cranium.
irony (ī′rə nē, ī′ər nē)
noun pl. ironies -·nies
1. a method of humorous or subtly sarcastic expression in which the intended meaning of the words is the direct opposite of their usual sense the irony of calling a stupid plan “clever”
2. an instance of this
http://www.yourdictionary.com/irony
Here’s your problem sicilian 1, you have no sense of the above. I wasn’t writing a logistical syllogism, I was lampooning your attempts at logic. What did you do? You tried to take apart the logic of my clearly illogical statements, which were a satire of how you think you are logical in your writing. You indeed appear to be an angry, or combative man, who has no sense of humor, or his own fallibility. Curiously,
you project these personality traits onto those who disagree with you. This means you lack self-awareness, which I suggest to you is something you should remedy for your own good.
“Everyone knows what the intention of branding someone a schmuk is. Do NOT try to play a semantic game. If you meant it you meant it. Do not try to excuse yourself.”
Of course I meant it and in no way was trying to either excuse myself or apologize. I was merely providing the current meaning of the word, which originally applied to a foreskin, in order to be clear on the epithet I was using for those not familiar with Yiddish.
“Everyone knows what the intention of branding someone a schmuk is. Do NOT try to play a semantic game. If you meant it you meant it. Do not try to excuse yourself.”
“You also exhibit all the charm, wit and grace of a sick cat coughing up hairballs.”
Only difference being the cat may be worth saving.
Buddha,
Don’t like it when others do the same. THe only trick you got is to accuse your opponents of being “Rovian”
At least I let you step in it first.
sartiblartfast,
Since your so brillant why don’t you read a quote from MIT professor Richard Lindzen when speaking about consensus vs. skepticism. Look him up. I only promote my blogs not others.
And remember THAT is my ONE and ONLY point. Not a criticism against global-warming b/c I’m NOT a scientist so the jury is still out for me.
Can’t you come up with anything better than recycling their tired old tactics?
No?
Well then quit bitching when you’re called on it.
Buddha,
There you go back to the progressive playbook. “Rove” “neocon” Can’t you come up with anything better than these demonizing branding tactics, You can NOT argue one point without taking those intellectual and verbal shortcuts. You try to slime and demonize and think that I’m going to respond in turn or even think that I will defend myself against a label I am not. I will not step into your trap I am NOT a slave to an ideology and am certainly not part of the groups you try to throw me into. You are a one trick pony reading from the same old tired handbook.
Finaly an acknowledgement of the great Siddarthura but you do not even know how I exposed your ignorance. I made the Siddarthura reference at least 8 times in the past month yet you NEVER once even nodded to my name-drop. Any attempts now to try to claim knowledge of the great one is NOT credible. A true practitioner of the great one would not have taken kindly to my incessent vieled insults to your lack of knowledge of his person and teachings. And anyone who was an adherrent to those teachings would never want to offend b/c that is not what he taught.
Your belitting comments do not discredit me they only expose your lack of intellect and ability to control your emotions.
MIKE S,
your proof theorm starts off with a faulty premise. I NEVER said ALL those on this site were progressives. That must be your subliminal guilt-complex causing you to transpose that.
My only intention is to bait and expose progressives wherever they may be. Thank you for continuing to allow me to so easily accomplish my mission.
So w/the faulty 1st point all other points become unsound or invalid. However I will humor you and take them as they stand alone.
Point 2 may or may not ne true b/c every progressive has to be taken individually.
Point3 whether or not point 2 is true is true b/c it is fair to bait to expose the ingrained biases and intolerance of progressives. It is fair to use their own tactics against them.
Point4 is true if my intention was to bait a progressive and they bit. Sometimes non-progressives rise up to defend the progressive. Admittedly that does not make them a progressive but if they argue from a progressive viewpoint then they will open themselves up to my criticism.
Point5 B/c Point2 may or may not be true then Point may or may not be true. And besides, I think this is a redundant point b/c you mentioned conformist twice.
Point6 is faulty logic b/c is NOT true and I never claimed it to be. My only aim is to bait progressives and it continues to be successful.
Therom 2 may in fact be true. Obviously as the #1 Islamic apologist you do not think so.
Everyone knows what the intention of branding someone a schmuk is. Do NOT try to play a semantic game. If you meant it you meant it. Do not try to excuse yourself. That’s how you like to play, fine. It’s not going to take me off mine.
Nice try, Karl, er, Sil. A propagandist calling an avowed and proven anti-propagandist a propagandist is just too funny and a lot like deja vu coming from the troll crowd. You boys are running out of tactics, eh? Smart enough to tow the line but not smart enough to realize Rove is a one trick pony.
I’m afraid your credibility ship here has sailed long ago though.
And although you may think Siddhartha would find me an embarrassment, at least I have only offended one man with my ignorance and you have managed to offend an entire island and her population with yours. I said it was a waste of time to address you and I do stand corrected. You’ve just again shown your true nature. The bad news is you may think it wins people over to your side, but no, it doesn’t. You don’t lose because us nasty progressives trick you with rhetoric. You lose because you back losing ideas and do so poorly. You also exhibit all the charm, wit and grace of a sick cat coughing up hairballs.
But I’m done playing with you now, little boy. Run along and use your blunt amateur tools to try to smear progressives some more much to our collective amusement. Because just like a misbehaving child, you think the attention you are getting is positive. It’s not.
And that’s where the real humor lies. Your total inability to accept that the more you talk, the more you sound like a propaganda parrot that simply isn’t smart enough to know he’s a joke to those he’s addressing and not the beacon of enlightenment he has clearly portrayed himself as. You’re like Col. Klink on Hogan’s Heroes. Nominally a bad guy, but you’re just so inept, it’s plain funny. And the pissier you get, the funnier it is. In fact, you’re so foolishly consistent, I think we need to start calling you a hobgoblin instead of a troll.
So run along now. Do the Stupid Monkey Dance some more for the grown ups, little hobgoblin. I giggle in anticipation of the next bit of “wisdom” you have to impart. I’m sure the net result will be Progressives = bad or I’m a disgraceful douche bag of some sort.
mespo,
If you were AFFIRMING the CONSEQUENT it would have read like this.
1)All jackasses bray loudly then sicilian1 brays loudly
2)sicilian1 brays loudly
——————————
All jackassess bray loudly
That is a correct affirming the antecedent.You did not put a consequent in your first premise. The purpose of affirming the consequent is to PROVE the antecedent (i.e. my example above) If you are even acknowledged your unexplicated intention of affirming the consequent, you only used it to then prove the consequent which is faulty logic.
So while you were correct in stating that AFFIRMING the CONSEQUENT is invalid b/c they ALL are invalid, you wrote the argument in an incorrect form.
In all logical arguments the FIRST premise MUST be an if/then or to be a negation be separated by a (not) to be a disjunction an (or) a conjunction an (and) or a conditional a(then)
Your argument should have been written like this in a modus ponens form:
1)If all jackassess bray loudly then sicilian1 is a jackass
2)All jackassess bray loudly
——————————
sicilian1 is a jackass
That would HAVE to be a valid argument b/c all modus ponen arguments are valid. But once again you MUST test for soundness b/c that in the end is what determines the truthfullness of an argument. Absolutely any argument can be made to conclude to be true but if the premises are faulty the argument is junk.
1)Clearly once again, a faulty premise. We can NOT assume that ALL jackassess bray loudly. And I certainly am NOT a jackass. I am a human being. The fact alone that I have procreated 3 times w/another human being proves that point.
2)The second premise is once again as already stated faulty.
Therefore this is an unsound argument.
The way you framed your initial argument it would have even been impossible to logically draw the conclusion that you tried to.
Strictly logically speaking the entire form (premises and conclusion) was wrong and you weren’t even accomplishing your intended mission of affirming the consequent b/c of your faulty set-up
Your welcome.
sicilian 1’s logic seminar gleaned from his writings.
Proof of Theorem That This Is a Progressive Web Site
1. All people on this site are progressives.
2. Progressives are stupid, ignorant, conformist people.
3. Because point 2 is true than baiting progressives is fair.
4. When people respond to my baiting they are progressives.
5. Points 2&4 proves progressives are conformists.
6. People on this site respond to my baiting proving point 1
Proof of Theorem That Islam is a Bad, Terrorist Religion
1. Islam is a bad terrorist religion.
2. Islam Is A Bad Terrorist Religion
3. ISLAM Is A Bad Terrorist Religion
4. ISLAM IS A BAD Terrorist Religion
5. ISLAM IS A BAD TERRORIST RELIGION
6 ISLAM IS A BAD TERRORIST RELIGION!
Schmuck, a Yiddish word, has a range of meaning depending on context. In its most innocuous use, a schmuck is a person who does a stupid thing, in which case “dumb schmuck” is the appropriate expression.
A schmuck’s behavior ranges from pesky and inconsiderate, to obnoxious and manipulative. A schmuck’s personality type ranges from jerk to bastard.
Schmucky behavior also falls within a range of intentionality. Some schmucks carefully plan their bad behavior, some only a little, and some not at all. For example, the bastard may spend considerable time planning his bad deeds. In contrast, the dumb schmuck and the pesky behave badly without any forethought.
http://www.schmucku.com/definition.html
Buddha,
You are the propagandist who can only spew the set template that has been drilled into your head.
You can NOT cpme to terms that it is you the progressive who builds every conclusion on faulty premises. That is why none of your arguments can pass the test and all your defense mechanisms are merely failed rhetoric to demonize.
You are certainly NOT equipped to teach logic. What? I did the truth table right there on the post AND was even honest enough to admit the argument passed the validity test. I did NOT manipulate ANYTHING unlike the intellectually dishonest progressives. The test for validity was NOT in my favor yet I still presented it truthfully.
I then showed how the premises were faulty making the argument a valid yet unsound one.
I did it for your own eyes. Honest AND truthful!!! Yet you want to try and impune my intellect by singing the praises of you and your ilk, by putting yourself on a pedastal in order to discredit me.
How does that work? I exhibited complete objectivity to show what the results of the argument would be and presented the outcome truthfully. If you want to argue logic, then there can be no complaint b/c I did. You just did not like the result so you resort to your inferior brand of rhetoric.
You see I won’t fall into your meager trap. I never tried to lecture abt logic. I only presented an equation that all logicians use to teat for validity and soundness. I never said there weren’t any capable logicians on this site. And if there are that does not mean that I am not a capable logician, it only means there are more than 1 capable logicians.
See, you are the one with the faulty logic.
Your premise is that there are capable logicians on the site. The conclusion is therefore I am not a capable logician and not worthy to challenge the other logicians. While the premise could be true the conclusions you draw are obviously not true. I may very well be a capable logician and nobody has the authority of telling me who I am or am not worthy of challenging. And just b/c there are capable logicians does not mean I am not one nor would I lose my right to challenge. And the fact that I presented an honest/objective table of truth lends credence to the fact that I do have some formal knowledge of practical logic therefore your indictments of me must only be generated from a personal bias.
All progressive argument does not possess strong logic and there rhetorical tactics are mainly immature finger-pointing and branding that will not work with me.
It is you who exposes your biases at every turn, you are the one who brands me continuously and accusses me of the very same thing you’re guilty of.
Please, I encourage you, continue with the name calling. It only further proves me point.
Oh ta, and could you please lose the tag, it is an insult to the great Siddarthura and he would not be proud.
FFLEO,
“… he took up the law instead (of math) where he could make a livin’ and a difference.” That hurts man – mathematicians may not make as good of a living as lawyers but they can make a difference. Who knows what rafflaw might have done with more schooling and less money…
Slar,
I bet raff had a stern ol’ math ‘fesser who shouted out “Euclid” in class one day and raff was a’readin’ his Perry Mason comic book and he thought the teacher said ‘You Kid”! and skert raff offin’ math forevermore. Good thing, cause he took up the law instead where he could make a livin’ and a difference.
Good choice Rafflaw
rafflaw,
What did Euclid ever do to you?
Well rafflaw, at least you most likely never got caught in a Lover’s *Triangle*…
Former Fed,
Everything I did in Math was funny.
Now raff, that was funny!
rafflaw 1, July 2, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Slats,
Math may be my friend, but Geometry is my enemy.
**************************
Maybe you can get someone from Enron to help you. I know they know how to cook book maybe they can teach you math as well. It is your friend.
Slats,
Math may be my friend, but Geometry is my enemy.