South Dakota 123
South Dakota News, Pictures, and Videos
Wolf in Sheep's clothing is actually a minnow-munching Republican.
Keep South Dakota 123 alive and free of ads!
South Dakota 123 Donors
1. Joe Prostrollo - $20
2. Jensen - $15
3. tcconlon - $10
4. andrea - $10
5. gfuller - $5
With the use of credit cards becoming mainstream, credit card companies are...Generally people deem traveling to be one amongst the most expensive event in...If you cannot board your pet, or leave it at home and find that you must take...If you cannot board your pet, or leave it at home and find that you must take...If you cannot board your pet, or leave it at home and find that you must take...http://www.generalissimo.orgGenerally people deem traveling to be one amongst the most expensive event in...I like this story, so i'll pligg it, but also i want to tell you that i like to...Generally people deem traveling to be one amongst the most expensive event in...Generally people deem traveling to be one amongst the most expensive event in...
By City
Aberdeen Brookings Deadwood Elk Point Mitchell Pierre Rapid City Sioux Falls Spearfish Vermillion Watertown Yankton
By People
Hillary Clinton Tom Daschle Tom Dempster Scott Ehrisman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Tim Johnson Steve Kirby John McCain Barack Obama Mike Rounds John Thune Renessa Williams
Comments
Tell us more. So he was an independent? You're not saying all "minnow munchers" are Republicans, I'm sure so...
He was a Republican that was recruited by a Pro-Life Dem (Pat Kirshman) to bump Martha Vanderlinde out of the general who is also running in that primary. She of course is pro-choice. I still think she has nothing to worry about, she is a retired nurse who is pro-education and pro-elder care, and that district I think voted 70% against the abortion ban. I guess what disconcerns me the most is that John works as the Business manager for the Diocease and he is running for office, one could point out some conflicts of interest with separation of church and state. but we all know that the pro-lifers in this state will do and say anything to get their way.
Yup. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Pat is an old friend of mine and I'm thinking (hoping) that it's not quite as nefarious as you think. Kirshman has been very active in recruiting all Dems. Plus, I remember some pretty crazy times in Sioux Falls Democratic relations. When I was real active, I was asked to speak at Forum in Sioux Falls and my topic was why the pro-life and pro-choice sides needed to make peace. I'm thinking there's more to the story...
Trust me, I did some digging, and all roads lead to Pat purposely recruiting John because he is pro-life. Why else would a fellow Dem try to bump out another fellow Dem? Not to mention, Martha is a very bright, sweet lady and would make a great representative. Maybe Pat is a closet Mysonginist? I've found most middle-aged, male, pro-lifers are in this state.
Hopefully it makes the Dems stronger in the end.... We'll see
you'll have to explain to me how this possibly could make the Dems any stronger. Unless this guy is pretty progressive on other issues -like wanting to end the death penalty or instituting an state income tax- then what do the Dems gain by adding someone who is basically a GOPster- when they could vote for the real deal? Let's take the abortion issue off the table and find out how much of a Dem this guy really is.
It could make the dems stronger just the same way this Obama / Clinton fight is actually making the Dems stronger.
1. Register more voters
2. Raise more money
3. More organized lists
4. More media attention
5. Vetting
6. Competition is a good thing
7. Candidates always borrow the best ideas from each other
The only way it turns into a negative thing is when Dems can't get along with Dems.
"Obama / Clinton fight is actually making the Dems stronger."- Are you watching the same race I am?
Back to the point:
I'm all for bringing in new Dem candidates. But I'd rather have new ones that give voters a choice between R' & D's not an echo. On your list, I like #5. Let's vet these candidates shall we?
And maybe you should ask your friend Kirshman what his intentions really are for bringing in pro-life GOPsters into the party. Has he done this before?
I don't know this candidate, but it sounds like your issue is really just that he's pro-life? If that's the measure than we have a lot more problems. There are a bunch of pro-choice Republicans and a bunch of pro-life Democrats in South Dakota. Single issue voting doesn't support caucus building.
You must have missed when I said,"Let's take the abortion issue off the table and find out how much of a Dem this guy really is."
Maybe the reason these guys are in this race is exactly because of that one issue. You said Kirschman was your friend, so maybe YOU should ask him that.
"Single issue voting doesn't support caucus building."- My point exactly.
Plus if these guys basically support the SDGOP platform (including teaching creationism) maybe we should know that.
Yeah I haven't talked to Pat in a couple years -- I'm just not that involved in politics anymore.
But don't you think you're jumping to conclusions? If you're going by assumptions that the guy is going to vote Catholic, then he would be with you on most issues -- death penalty, social justice, etc. And the Catholic Church believes in evolution, so... just because someone is religious doesn't mean that he's GOP. That's why I asked Scott for some more details in the first place. The cartoon tells us nothing about his background.
It tells us one thing, he was a Republican who switched his registration because of ONE (very divisive) issue. And that is very troubling.
Excellent point Ben... the Catholic Church does support evolution!
One has to be careful about equating pro-lifers with the evangelical/fundamentalist/GOP movement that is often pro-life, creationist, and pro-death penalty.
I also know conservative professors at Mount Marty college who support the GOP and are pro life but are anti-death penalty and support evolution.
I know Catholics who support the capital punishment, and are creationist, even though the Church doesn't support such ideologies.
Just because one is a Catholic, Republican, or Democrat doesn't mean that they agree with everything that their party or Church supports/teaches!
This applies to Baptists as well.
Ben- I'm jumping to conclusions because I have questions about these guys because of this cartoon? That's a laugh.
No one is making the argument here that there are people who politically disagree with their religion and visa versa. Let's not confuse the issue here.
Right now I know that there there are several issues I agree with Vanderlinde on and of the issues I know of, there are zero out of one issues that I agree with the other two on. So that's what I want to know: Who are these clowns?
Aren't you jumping to a conclusion these guys aren't just single issue trouble makers. I'm saying: Let's find out.
How do we find out if these guys are for real?
Keep up the work SouthDaCola. Maybe others who actually care who the standard bearers of the Dems will ask more questions too.
I hope more digging is done.
Alright, here's where some of (my) confusion comes from. In the cartoon it says, "But I'm not a registered Republican." Maybe Scott meant to say "I used to be a Republican" because they have different meanings to me. All I was asking for was details and I still haven't gotten a single one except that he is running against a pro-choice Dem.
This guy just didn't fall out of the sky and register as a Democrat and want to run for the legislature and force a primary.
That would be a creationist theory- ba-da-bum.
You're pretty naive if you think there aren't pro-lifers who run to take out pro-choicers just because of that one issue. It's happened over and over.
It happens so often in this state that I am not willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt for now.
Ben, Maybe you should ask John. (people, please remember, this is satire, don't get your shorts in a bunch about my use of grammar, I went to a vo-tech, my bad).
Spending tax dollars on a poorly though-out PR stunt is a really bad idea, no matter what stunt it is. Our state's broke enough as it is.
Yup, nothing cooler then spending millions of our tax dollars on trying to figure out something that God only knows the answer to.
Screw headlines.
This creator that we speak of apparently knows the answer to everything so perhaps we should not bother with getting rid of the death penalty either, because God is the only one who really knows if that is a just law or not.
Should I go on and on and on...
seriously though, give me a break with that comment!
You missed the point, obviously. The abortion debate comes down to when life begins, (or at least that is the way the Pro-lifers are trying to frame it). That is why many states are putting that on the ballot instead of an abortion ban. God is the only one that knows when life begins or even when it ends for that matter.
In my opinion a 'baby' is something that can live on it's own outside of it's mother's womb. Last I checked you don't set a SS# until you are born, not when your mother finds out she is preggo. So if you are not considered a citizen of the United States until you are 'born' how is it 'murder' if the US government doesn't recognize you yet as a citizen?
I, to some extent, agree with you but the last thing that I want to do is get into a debate on when life begins.
but your statement came off as you suggesting that we should not bother to put this issue on the ballot because only God knows when life begins.
I am saying that we are never going to know what God knows ( in this life at least ) but that doesnt mean that we cannot use science and whatnot to help us gain a better understanding of when life does in fact begin. And can we not take that data and the subjective opinions of many others to the ballot in order to make a law?
Sure. Are you going to convince God to give you that data, or should I? Maybe the Supreme Court can subpena it?
Science will never be able to objectively determine when human life begins. It's impossible to objectively determine much of anything in this abortion argument, hence the fight.
For me, it comes down to letting the woman have control over her own body. She's a person by any oblective standard, the fetus is not.
I think we should just end this on your above comment...it was just brilliant!!!!!!
did you not read the part that said "better understanding"?
So if I impregnate a woman, then I have no say whatsoever on my future child? That doesn't seem fair?
and...would you not say that we have a better understanding of when life begins today than we did 2000 years ago? You do not have to respond to this because you know the answer already! Of course scientific data is not objective in the whole debate over when life began; however, it can help us gain a better understanding of when it does in fact begin.
2000 years ago Christians believed that we came from Adam and Eve, now we have advanced in our knowledge and have theorized (a theory is based on facts) that we came from hominids some 3.5 million years ago.
Do you get my point!
We're not talking about when life begins, but rather when personhood begins. Since our brainiac legislators and loony Leslee are trying to make a LAW banning abortions, we need a LEGAL definition of when personhood begins. Understanding when life begins is fine and dandy, but it will take lawyers and judges to determine personhood for the purpose of trying to ban abortion.
In short, Leslee and Roger are trying to build a house roof first.
Life begins when Rep. Roger Hunts says it does. I thought everyone knew that!?
I think he is about 7 months along, isn't he?
hahaha