Summations Only

The one line I really liked was 'Is that math Republican use to make themselves feel better, or is it real'?Look at this, and laughJon Stewart Mocks Fox News' Election Night Meltdown: 'There Was An Avalanche On Bullsh*t Mountain' (VIDEO) | HuffPost Entertainment

The question on Fox News to Karl Rove was telling: "Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?"--Percy

On FOX NEWS!I had to watch it twice just to be sure of what I was seeing!When Fox News tells you that you, as a conservative, are likely to be delusional, it's time to seek professional help.ABE: Also, regarding the subtitle - wouldn't Nate technically be a Warlock, since he's male? These are important distinctions.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Even more telling is that, finally, one of their own is calling them out live, on TV. And not in some vague innuendo, she literally called him out on his bullshit, right there bfore your very eyes. Has to be a first for Fox News.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

The good Doctor asks: The field of topology says ALWAYS POSSIBLE with the current rules & conventions they use to form a state in the USA. But consider some of these maps of Africa with Lethoso imbedded entirely within South Africa. Switzerland never had this happen to them.This must be related to the 4-color Map Theorem (proved now by proving that computer was going to prove it).But if we bring in Dedekind sets or weird shit like part of Tennessee occupying an interior region of Wyoming, for example, then, NO.WAIT. I'm wrong again here for Lethoso. Just make a blob within a blob. My Tennessee colony in Wyoming might be hard to distort without snapping one of the intervening borders into a situation where a state that used to touch another state no longer touches that other state, if the distorted population region had to be contiguously connected. So if they were to allow that, the answer is NO.

It's not... Has happened a bunch of times. Fox News may be a Republican/Populistic propaganda machine, but somes times, the hosts can't take it.Even Bill O'Reilly did a great interview with Sarah Palin during the 2008 election, calling her out on all her BS.Ofcourse, Hannity or Hume and the likes would never do that. They just follow the republican line. Folks like Bill O really do consider them selves smart scholars, and though they are willing to follow the party line most of the time, sometimes they just cannot allow them selves to follow the line.Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

Yes, and then for Karl Rove to go on his rant about "voter supression" by PAC when he was the Republican PACmaster is the picture of hypocrisy.Before we go on giving too much credit, at some point, note that at some point, Fox was going to have to acknowledge the results of the election. The fun part so far has been watching Karl Rove do so in the most graceless way possible, short of joining those few Ole Miss students in a protest demonstration.Haven't seen O'Reilly yet, but I predict he'll simply dump all over the part of the electorate that Obama won. I have seen a bit of Hannity's ranting.I haven't heard anyone say this yet, but for me the real elephant in the room is that Obama won while getting only 40% of the white vote. I cannot imagine a "one of us" Democrat doing any worse than that with the white vote which surely must include at least some people who wouldn't vote for Obama if he were the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I found it rather interesting that the seventh-day Adventist who is my computer mainstay at work somehow discovered that Fox News lies as they couldn't declare the winner without whining or intentional deception.Now if he could only understand that Murdock is not the only liar on the block but so is Drudge and WorldNet Daily.Small steps, religious fervor is difficult when it comes to appeal to reason.As for our precious Republican Party and their angry white men, I feel they best get used to losing.As I have recently begun to comprehend due to my graduate studies, the United States did not leave England so much because of taxes, they left because they felt, and with good reason, they were being treated as second-class citizens being bereft of that representation in Parliament.To paraphrase one of the mighty intellects of the Republican Party, Sarah Palin:So how's that treating Hispanics. Blacks, Indians, and most importantly women as second-class citizens working out for you Republicans?Edited by anglagard, : Change hows to how's. Yes, unlike many of my adversaries, I can admit making mistakes. Edited by anglagard, : With all my pontificating, forgot to actually change the error I was going on about.

Minnesota's sittin' nice:

quote:

---

"Minnesota Legislature: Democrats regain control" from TwinCities.com:

​

Democrats regained control of the Minnesota Legislature Tuesday, Nov. 6, putting them in charge of both chambers and the governor's office for the first time in 22 years.

---

Us St. Cloudians with brains tried our hardest to get that crazy she-ape out of the U.S. House, but we were outvoted by the loons that live down in the marshes.Funny thing, when you look at the map in this link, it is actually the most populated areas of the state that went Republican, in contrast to what is seen on the national map as a whole.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : just can't get nothin' write!

Oh well, Michelle, still good for comedy (or tragedy, depending upon one's dramatic inclinations).

Yes, but historically, we know where this leads. Dems do some good, but get corrupted by power eventually and start to repulse the electorate. Then the Repubs get their turn.

After the election I assumed he'd have come out of the woodwork to tell us all that America is gonna go straight to hell, now, having re-elected the Muslimoatheist Socialist Foreigner from Chicago, but neither hide nor hair. Was the shock too much for him? Or did he already decamp for the refuge of Canada?

I was watching a little C-SPAN this afternoon, and I saw a panel discussion with some people looking at post election demographics. The panel members that caught my ear were Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and James Pinkerton of Fox News. I believe Stanley Greenberg also participated.Reed and Pinkerton were in absolute denial mode about the election. They seemed to believe that the only lesson to be gathered was that maybe the Republican party could do better if they tackled immigration reform. But they seemed skeptical about even that.Pinkerton recounted a bunch of history about incumbents usually winning, and I noted that he never even mentioned the fact that elder Bush only had a single term. He did manage to mention Jimmy Carter's single term. It was not just a matter of failing to mention the elder Bush. Pinkerton cited statistics that did not include Bush's single term.Reed harped on the increase in evangelical voting and how well Romney did with that group.I believe it was Pinkerton who claimed that Obama benefited from promising immigration reform and then not actually accomplishing it, thus leaving the issue on the table. Neither Pinkerton nor Reed entertained any idea that the harsh tone the Republicans took on immigration had anything to do with the results.Greenberg raised the point that the Republicans unexpected inability to capture any senate seats was something worth noting, and both Reed and Pinkerton advanced various explanations of why the Democrats success in the senate meant absolutely nothing. In my view the explanations were utterly unconvincing, but you can probably find a replay of the panel discussion on C-SPAN's website.In short, if Pinkerton and Reed are any examples, the right wing of the Republican party will learn absolutely nothing from the election. The main problem with their explanations, is that they leave Obama's victory utterly inexplicable.

After reading your message, I looked at a few of Buzsaws last few posts here. Those posts included one rational post and a couple more of vintage Buz ranting and raving. Buzsaw is a great foil and a huge abuse target. But he is completely out of his depth here.I have been here a relatively short time compared to most of you, but I can name a number of creationist posters I'd rather see return before Buz. I don't miss him even a little.

I am suspecting that crash was concerned about buz's health. He is one of our older member (I'm talking age here), and has not been heard from for approaching 3 months.Well, at least I have that concern. I am only guessing about crash.