South Dakota celebrates self-sufficiency... until it needs a check from Uncle Sam:
State and federal disaster aid for South Dakota's floods this year has topped $9 million, disaster officials said today.
The figure includes $1.8 million in aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) targeted to households.
...Federal and state assistance for flood-fighting measures and rebuilding public infrastructure in South Dakota has reached $2 million from FEMA and $266,000 from the State of South Dakota's Office of Emergency Management. FEMA pays 75 percent of the eligible cost or repairing or replacing infrastructure, the state pays 10 percent, and the local government responsible for the structure pays the remaining 15 percent.
...FEMA has assigned 57 missions to various federal agencies and other resources in support of the emergency response, at a total cost of $5.15 million. The federal missions included law enforcement and levee patrol by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and by Customs and Border Patrol, flights by the Civil Air Patrol, technical assistance from the Corps of Engineers to advise on locally-built levees, help with wastewater issues from the Environmental Protection Agency, help with housing issues from Housing and Urban Development, help with hospital issues from the Department of Health and Human Services, and help with animal and pet shelters by the U. S. Department of Agriculture [State of South Dakota, press release, 2011.09.02].
The South Dakota Tea Parties seem to lack for things to do. Maybe Allen Unruh and Shad Olson could hold a statewide summit at the Missouri River and picket the flooded neighborhoods, demanding that those mooching homeowners send back those nasty, tyrannical government checks.
Kinda ironic you use FEMA to blast the Tea Party considering in your bumper sticker post is pointed out how Reagan articulated a legitimate role of the federal government is to be involved in natural disasters.
Mr. "H,"
If we look at the original intent of our Constitution, of allowing for a federal government, I think we can see that it was never the intent to have the massive power & tax consuming federal government that we are currently saddled with.
Are we also supposed to be grateful when the insurance companies we pay so much into, pays for a cracked windshield? Am I somehow less self-sufficient because they did the service they were paid in excess for?
Please let the straw man rest from the argument that South Dakota gets more than it receives from our federal relationship. Especially when all the taxes they reap and the national obligations in SD are not articulated, let a lone the debt we are inheriting for some of the monies they are returning with strings & debt attached.
Troy, I'm just asking the Tea Party criers and believers in self-reliance to clarify their positions.
And Stace, last I checked, we get a buck-fifty back for every buck we give the government. Not every state gets so generous of an "insurance policy". How are we getting services that we've paid for?
When you add our share for the debt we are incurring, it is not $1.50. We are just taking out a note that burdens our children. I thought you cared ab out the children.
Mr "H,"
Poor tired old Mr. Strawman... :-D
Deduct the monies for federal obligations for treaties, federal highways, etc., then factor in the "free" monies we are getting with debt strings attached. I think you will find we are getting the short end of the stick in regards to our commitments in taxes, debt, and the trickle ups not counted from SD.
Troy, I would assume that the debt is shared out proportionally to the current tax structure that has South Dakota coming out as a net beneficiary. Everybody inherits the debt; without changes, our kids will pay less of it than the Minnesota or Illinois kids who will continue to subsidize them.
Stace, now you're brewing imaginary numbers. The Tax Foundation ran the numbers. It finds more federal money comes to South Dakota than we pay in taxes to D.C. It's a pretty simple and honest equation. We benefit more than we pay.
Mr. "H,"
Clearly they are looking ONLY at income tax taken from SD with no consideration to the other federal taxes taken or deduction of monies obligated by treaty or federal obligations.
Until those numbers are considered, the data is incomplete at best.
Only if you think people on the reservations aren't South Dakotans, Stace, (which sounds about right, coming from you).
Sometimes I'm just purely astonished at the things Nelson is willing to put in writing, Cory. I can't believe anyone would actually want him to represent them.
Cory, The "nasty, tyrannical government" caused the flood.
Bill, I thought the reservations were sovereign?
Stace, your are right, once you figure in the debt being passed on to future generations, South Dakota is getting a screw job. After that, then factor in all the federal red tape that costs a ton and how the red tape is used to restrict us from doing what we want to do.
@Bill Good to see that one of my favorite blindmen are still grabbing at the tail of the elephant and thinking they know what an elephant looks like.
The folks on the reservations are South Dakotans, American citizens, AND members of soverign nations that the United States of America has treaty obligations to.
How much is the SDGOP paying you to be the vile creature that you play so well on the blogs? Priceless, keep up the good work.
Stace? What is this about? "How much is the SDGOP paying you to be the vile creature that you play so well on the blogs? Priceless, keep up the good work."
Bill and vile are two words that I wouldn't use in the same sentence...and why would the SDGOP pay him?
@Jana The rabid attack mode that folks like him enjoy, you would be surprised to know that it does not play well in hometown SD.
What do I know though, great campaign strategy folks! Keep up the great work, don't change a thing. :-D
Rep Nelson,
You write, Good to see that one of my favorite blindmen are still grabbing at the tail of the elephant and thinking they know what an elephant looks like."
That remark implies that you are not blind and have total knowledge of the what the "elephant" looks like. Where did you gain such sight and wisdom? Would please enlighten us as to the totality of the elephant. Please do so without cliches or talking points.
You didn't answer the question...again. Come on Stace, man up...answer the question.
By the way Stace, since you decided to attack good old Bill, here's another question. Have there been any times in your life where the government wasn't providing you with an income?
"which sounds about right, coming from you"
Jana,
So it was "good old Bill" [who has been a hired gun in South Dakota's political arena] who swung first. I agree, Stace should not have swung back.
So let us get back on issue. Do you believe that it is moral for South Dakota's state government to spend approximately $750 million in money borrowed from future generations?
If what you are saying, Stace, is that it is your opinion that your fellow South Dakotans are as dismissive of people on the Reservations as you are, even to the point of discounting their contribution to the State's economy and cultural brand, I would be hard pressed to argue with you.
My point is, you should be trying to counter that notion, not reinforce it.
But alas, you seem to be only concerned with partisan politics.
What a waste of talent.
Question for you, Stace: How many Republicans do there have to be in the SD Legislature before guys like you stop being afraid of the big, bad Democrats?
That's pretty funny, Steve.
Unlike you, I have never been paid by anyone to write even one word on the internet on behalf of any politician or any political cause, ever, and never intend to.
I write freely, from my own personal position, for no compensation whatsoever. And nothing I say should be construed as being anything other than my own personal take on things.
If for some reason that ever changes, I will be the first to let everyone know.
Bill,
Not surprised that you would resort to compartmentalization. But instead of swinging back, I would rather have the issue addressed:
Do you believe that it is moral for South Dakota’s state government to spend approximately $750 million in money borrowed from future generations?
First, that wasn't a swing, Steve. Just a clarification. And second, I think money is a vague philosophical concept and challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
It's just uncanny how closely Steve and Stace's behavior maps to the outline Richard Hofstadter provided in his classic 1964 essay in Harpers.
Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
Excerpt:
"Perhaps the central situation conducive to the diffusion of the paranoid tendency is a confrontation of opposed interests which are (or are felt to be) totally irreconcilable, and thus by nature not susceptible to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise.
The situation becomes worse when the representatives of a particular social interest—perhaps because of the very unrealistic and unrealizable nature of its demands—are shut out of the political process. Having no access to political bargaining or the making of decisions, they find their original conception that the world of power is sinister and malicious fully confirmed.
They see only the consequences of power—and this through distorting lenses—and have no chance to observe its actual machinery. A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen.
It is precisely this kind of awareness that the paranoid fails to develop. He has a special resistance of his own, of course, to developing such awareness, but circumstances often deprive him of exposure to events that might enlighten him—and in any case he resists enlightenment.
We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well."
Bill, Paranoid? So why are you afraid to answer this:
Do you believe that it is moral for South Dakota’s state government to spend approximately $750 million in money borrowed from future generations?
"Perhaps the central situation conducive to the diffusion of the paranoid tendency is a confrontation of opposed interests which are (or are felt to be) totally irreconcilable, and thus by nature not susceptible to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise."
Bill, I don't look at the truth as being paranoid. And I simply refuse to compromise the truth by adopting Hegelian dialectics.
1. I did answer it, Steve. I think it's a loaded question. A false premise. We haven't borrowed anything from the future anything. That's impossible.
2. Just read the essay and see if you find yourself in there, Steve. If you don't fine. I'm mistaken. No big deal. It just seems to me that you use a lot of the very same arguments and have a very similar rhetorical style.
"We haven’t borrowed anything from the future anything."
Bill, then explain the $14 trillion federal debt that can't be paid unless we incurr more debt.
And again, I do not believe facing the truth is paranoid. The $14 trillion federal is a truth that most don't want to face. And when a few of us bring it up, the paranoid dismiss it by calling the truthsayers paranoid. Don't make me use the mirror line like I used to Bill.
"I simply refuse to compromise the truth by adopting Hegelian dialectics."
In other words, Sibby prefers Sophistry and rhetoric to the Socratic method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
Show me a breakdown of the $14 trillion Steve, and you'll mist likely see that none of came from the future. And it could has just as easily have been printed as borrowed if you would prefer that.
"you’ll mist likely see that none of came from the future"
It did not come from the future, it is being sent to the future. And the Federal Reserve printing it only means we are borrowing it from those who have the printing press. Why don't the people have that press, so we don't have debt?
Sophistry? Or is my position on truth is that it is not created by man, but by God.
We do have that press. "We the People" ARE the government, unless you don't believe in the Constitution any more. But it's a matter of balancing inflation. Like I said, money is a vague, philosophical concept. Things only have value because we agree that they do. That's why market bubbles burst. That's why people hoard gold and love diamonds. There's your truth, Sibby. We just make it all up as we go along.
Yes, sophistry.
Steve, you are basically arguing against critical thinking. So the question becomes, "If God didn't want you to think and reason, why did he give you the ability to do it?"
So Stace still hasn't answered the question of why the SDGOP would pay Mr. Fleming.
Here's why I think Stace said it. It's because he despises the establishment Republicans that have built this state into one of the most conservative in the country....just not conservative enough for Stace.
and so while runs his mouth in the locker room tearing down the players that got them in the lead, he really wants to be the quarterback and the coach without earning the position.
Oh yeah Stace, the other question was when haven't you been on the government teet for your and your families welfare?
Man up Stace. I don't think anybody will think less of you for your or your father being a public servant...although being a public servant seems to be a favorite whipping boy of the extreme right.
Stace, you also said great campaign strategy...
Given the way that voters have moved away from both parties to the middle in SD, I'm wondering how good the strategy of running to the hard right is?
Stace, whether it's treaty obligations or manna from heaven, and regardless of who gets it, on reservation or not, the fact is, the money comes to South Dakota. It pays bills and pumps money into our economy that wouldn't be here otherwise. It builds roads and schools and meets other needs that we'd have to pay for ourselves. (And heaven forbid we start taking those treaties really seriously, or I'll have to surrender my Spearfish apartment to some of Crazy Horse's descendants. But hmm... maybe I could all the Spearfish French students to move to Lake Herman....)
@Jana Wow, you really need to get yourself a hobby AND do a little fact checking before you go on a little tirade. :-D
Grab onto that tail, you sure know what an elephant is! :-D
@Bill $0 not worth the time or effort to address your bile. :-D
Of course not, Stace, because you don't have any suitable answers. Best to just go wipe the egg off your face. Then start reading what you've typed over a few times and thinking about it a little before you hit the "post comment" button.
Cory, I wouldn't worry too much about having to move out of your house. But the Fed might have to do some catching up on some back rent owed to our "landlords" and then trying a little harder to stay current. They've been very, very patient.
Rep. Nelson: still modeling obesity between the ears for young South Dakotans i see.
@Bill On the contrary; however, I am having so much fun watching you concoct & project conversations that there is no need to participate.
A one liner here or there and then you go spinning off into the darkness with your insecure projections frothing from your fingertips. :-D
Happiness is a warm gun under your pillow, right Stace?
Better get some new boots, Stace. The ones you're wearing are full of bullet holes. Speaking of fun, there's nothing quite like watching a weapons instructor shoot himself in the foot. LOL.
How god failed: The Missouri River tried to cleanse the bottom feeders from Southern Dakota.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2011/09/arctic_sea_ice_nears_record_lo.shtml
“If God didn’t want you to think and reason, why did he give you the ability to do it?â€
Bill, God and thinking are not exclusive of each other. The issue is which has priority.
"It pays bills and pumps money into our economy that wouldn’t be here otherwise."
Cory, you are sounding like a capitalist Republican again.
No Steve, the issue is whether or not they are the same thing (unless, of course you're arguing that God is not conscious).
"So Stace still hasn’t answered the question of why the SDGOP would pay Mr. Fleming."
Jana, you have not answered the question directed at yourself, Bill and Cory. Why do you all want to ignore spending our children's wealth now?
"It’s because he despises the establishment Republicans that have built this state into one of the most conservative in the country..."
The RINOs talk conservative to the base, but they are implementing Obama's agenda. With South Dakota spending twice as much federal money versus their own, conservative does not mean government dependency. As I stated before, South Dakota spends $750 million of borrowed money from future generations. That is not conservative.
"Given the way that voters have moved away from both parties to the middle"
Both parties are Hamitonian federalists. Moving away from both is not moving to the middle. It is moving back to a Jeffersonian limited central government that won the day during the Constitutional Convention.
Sorry Bill, I am not going down the road of Monism. I am not going down the road with those who think that they can become little gods through science and reasoning. I am not going down the road of spiritual evolution that is based on a premise developed by a guy who thought the dark skin races have yet to evolve into white Aryans.
Steve,
I too believe that America was fortunate to have men of good intellect and character craft the Constitution. I find it ironic, however, that you rightfully decry racism in your 7:48 post but ignore that fact that the group that "won the day during the Constitutional Convention" enshrined slavery into the Constitution and counted enslaved Africans as only 3/5 of a person.
I also find it ironic that Jefferson inadvertently created conditions that brought about the demise of his vision for the country when he completed the Louisiana Purchase, a big government move without Constitutional provision or precedent.
LK,
I agree with your point that slavery was a huge mistake by our founders. Jefferson and many of the founders were Freemasons. Freemasons were behind the slave trade. The Freemasons used the issue to instigate the Civil War, that was designed by European interests to take control of the "New World".
And at this point I will admit that those who believe America was founded as a Christian Nation need to understand that it was actually created by Freemasons to look like a Christian Nation. The goal was to convert it later, and they have done so.
Suit yourself, Steve. Like I said, I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. I just wish you would be so kind as to return the favor. It's the "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude that always gets you guys in hot water. This country was founded AS AN ALTERNATIVE to people who hold absolutist positions like you do. The only reason you believe your position is the truth is because you do. That's circular reasoning, and (to the rational mind) not especially convincing, especially in light of empirical evidence to the contrary.
As to your argument about the future, was there ever a time where one generation didn't have to accept the consequences of the actions of the generations that came before? The generation before ours invested heavily in education, health care, national security, infrastructure and communications.
Are you resentful that you now have to pay for it?
Or grateful to them for their foresight?
"As to your argument about the future, was there ever a time where one generation didn’t have to accept the consequences of the actions of the generations that came before?"
Bill,
Yes, Andrew Jackson eliminated the debt as he refused to renew the Charter to the Central Bank. And as my comment to LK states, then the Civil War changed everything.
And speaking of circular, why do you insist that I have to accept moral relativism? Either there is a God, or there isn't. There are certain issues where there is no middle ground.
I don't insist that you accept anything, Steve. That would be the exact opposite of my position, which is to insist that you and your cohorts don't try to establish by law an official national religion.
Bill,
We are not establishing an official religion, the Freemasons are. It is called "New Age". It is being established through the education system via international standards in the name of national standards. Now they call them "Common Core Standards", which admit are "internationally benchmarked". I testified that truth to the South Dakota Board of Education last November and to the Senate Education Committee last legislative session.
As to your God concept, what is true is that your picture of what the Absolute is is either accurate or it isn't. Given the nature of the subject matter and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorum, it almost certainly isn't. But you are free to accept or reject logic and reason as you please, of course.
So Steve, is that why the Shriners drive those little cars around and dress up like clowns then? I was wondering what that was all about.
New Age... who knew?
The Shriners oath is to Allah.
The Shriner is given a red fez with an Islamic sword and crescent jewel on the front of it. This sword emblem originates from 7th century Arabia when the Moslems, under the leadership of Muhammad (aka: Mohammed), slaughtered all Christians and Jews who would not bow down to the pagan moon god Allah. It is a symbol of subjugation. The Shriners appear to have begun innocently enough; except for their link to and allegiance to the pagan moon god (note the crescent emblem) Allah.
The Illustrious Grand High Priest swears in new members who put their hands on a copy of the Muslim Koran.
http://enjoyingthejourney.blogspot.com/2009/06/shriners-and-freemasonry.html
That's just goofy, Steve. Do you know any Shriners? I do. And they don't believe anything of the sort. No a one of them. They're all about having fun and helping kids. That's it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shriners
See what I mean about being paranoid now?
Stace...so at what point in your life have you not been on the government teet for your support? This isn't a tough question and the "government teet" came from your people on the extreme right...as if public service were a bad thing.
@Jana I have never been disrespected by someone, in such a fashion, except from those who claim to be Liberals. I wear your scorn as a badge of honor. I have never been off the teet; however, it was not the government's.
:-D
Stace, I have great admiration of people who, through public service, are paid with taxpayer dollars. I do, however, take offense when those same people denigrate others public service and despise the very government that they work for.
You say you've never been off the teet...and maybe using the Republican term for people who receive taxpayer money was an unfortunate choice of words for me as well. But if your work for the military and your heritage of public service wasn't from the government, where did it come from?
Jana, you are correct.
Career government employee starting right out of high school:
http://www.stacenelson.com/aboutme.html
@Jana Your comments were vile and disrespectful.
You make the same mistakes that Mr. Bill does, you assume you know a person and then make your comments about that person to fit the warped idea you have of them. If I had to put back on my profiling hat, it would say a lot about the persons that would be so offensive in assuming about someone that they have never even met.
You, and the company you keep herein, are the only ones I am aware of that have denigrated others' public service. "Teet" is your word, not some mysterious Republican that is not in this conversation, you own the contempt.
I love this country and did all I could while in her service to promote the proper employment of our government for Americans.
@Bill Only a true fool would assume to know someone after witnessing a 5 second snapshot of 44 years of another's life. You wear the hat well though... :-D
Hey, Stace, it's YOUR resume. If it's not accurate, and you have income from other sources why don't you change it? I thought you were all about transparency, no?
p.s. Any disrespect you have received from me has been well earned.
:lol: :shock: :roll: :cool:
Stace, it is really odd to see those who attack absolute truth to argue that it has to be no government or 100% government. It would seem that after reaching $1 trillion in federal debt, common sense would tell us continuing to head toward a 100% government is a bad idea.
Steve, we're just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone complaining about government waste while having been 100% dependent on the government for his livelihood his entire lifetime.
You would think he would be thanking us (We the People) instead of demanding our undying gratitude for his just doing his job like any other working stiff.
BTW, Steve, there is NOTHING that Stace says that's the absolute truth. Far from it. You either for that matter. You guys should maybe think about coming down off your clouds and getting down here in real life with the rest of us.
You won't learning anything by just running the same old BS tapes over and over in your heads.
If you'll just do that, you'll see that when you change the way you look at things, everything you look at changes. And that's about as close to an absolute as you're ever gonna get, brother.
@Bill Let's keep your contempt in perspective though. Is it true that you once threatened to "beat up" a poster once who was simply pro-life? How about that rumor that you got paid over $200K on a failed democratic campaign? Were you for or against the Democrat? :-D
@Sibby I always feel like a Muppet when I am around a couple of these folks, always trying to project their thoughts via other's... Neat way to insult someone though do you think? Use made up people's comments as your own while not taking ownership? Hmmm, very interesting...
@Bill Not that it matters to a perpetual hater such as yourself, amongst the cases I worked my last year in the Philippines was over $4.5 Million in theft from the US Govt. that for the most part the criminals would have never been caught and the money never recovered but for the faithful public servant you so love to hate. But you two keep enjoying despising people like me that keep this great country free for you to do so! :-D
No, it's not completely true Stace, only partially.
A pro-lifer once accused me of impregnating my daughter and saying that's probably why I wanted to see an exception for rape and incest on HB1215.
If he had been standing in front of me, he would probably be missing some teeth right now. I think I said something to him to that effect, yes.
I later apologized. But like I said, good thing he wasn't standing there, or I may have had to pay him more than just an apology.
$200k? Not sure which campaign that would be, Stace. Last one I worked on that had that kind of budget, we won. Of course, it's not uncommon for a Democrat to lose an election, especially in South Dakota. That said, I'd have to have a little more info to answer your question. I don't recall doing anything that big in SD for a good many years.
As to the rest of your question, I never work on any campaigns where I'm opposed to the issue or the candidate.
That would: 1) be stupid of me to do, and 2) stupid of them to ask me.
The people get to work for are not stupid.
I don't hate you Stace, I just think you are a bully and a phoney.
@Bill Yet you employ like tactics with other posters and expect them to humor your poor manners? You have crossed the bounderies of civility on near every occasion and then feign the victim.
What sets us apart is I believe in who I am, you need to be paid to believe in your "cause" and there is a huge difference and you know it.
You are projecting Bill, you see your own shortcomings in the mirror of my life.
Your aggressive postings, and need to be paid to champion a cause, shows who the real bully & phoney is...
No Stace, I get paid to do things my clients either don't know how to do or don't want to do. It's just a service job, like yours.
p.s. "I believe in who I am."
...and here I thought Descartes was goofy.
What in the world does that mean, Stace?
But you're right, I don't believe in who I am.
It's completely unnecessary. A function of ego and neurotic anxiety.
I just am. Like a flower. So are you.
Don't waste your time trying to convince yourself who you are.
There's no wisdom in that. Just relax and be it.
BTW, Stace, just checking my memory banks here, the last two political races we worked on were for GOP candidates. One State Senator, one Mayor. The former won, the latter lost, unfortunately.
My comments were anything but vile and disrespectful. Sounds like a little more projection on your part. When did I say there was anything wrong, or vile, about public service?
Last I remember it was Alan Simpson from Wyoming Republican fame that used the word teat last in his description of people on Social Security and medicare. You can google government teat though and you will probably find that I really don't deserve credit for that.
You are right and I haven't met you, I have however read your website and find it funny that you tear down the government and the people that work in it. You have no problem ripping funding from kids and seniors, but have a hard time finding any savings that goes against the Big Party or Big Business.
Just so we are clear, there is to be no reading of your website and finding hypocrisy in your beliefs and no bringing up of your public service unless you wear it on your sleeve to show that you are a better American than the libs because you served your county...oh yeah and we should ignore the beliefs of others who have served, but disagree with your politics...just so we are clear. Crystal clear.
The above was for @Stace
In case anyone didn't figure that out.
@Jana We clearly are not crystal clear. Just because you type something & project that on others does not make it so. Aside from being extremely rude, it clearly has psychological tells about the mental state of those who do so.
I love the American Constitution & the Representative Democratic Republic that it provides for as our form of government. I have sworn to protect it, our country, our way of life, with my life, and to uphold the Constitution. Which I have faithfully done my whole life. That is the truth of the matter, not your railings projected above.
I also respect and am thankful for ALL those who have served as public servants as the postings on my personal site reflect http://www.stacenelson.com/id8.html http://www.stacenelson.com/hero.html
You CLEARLY have never listened to the debates on the House floor and are not privy to what is said during caucus.
Yes! Let's be crystal clear, you have NOT a clue about me and your insecure projections are REJECTED as the bitter vile bile that they are.
You are the one hiding in the dark making ugly desperate comments about people you don't know. That is a crystal clear statement as to your merits, not mine.
So telling. The people who have a problem with my service, repeatedly bring it up and cry foul that it is there for the world to see. Their own words indict their motives and contempt, not the proof of my service.
You seem to be projecting things on me that show your profiling techniques might not be as accurate as you thought.
The link you provided was about your father and very touching...but it said nothing to how you respect others in public service.
Please go back and tell me what was vile, rude, bile, and ugly desperate comments.
Oh and Stace, no one hates your service, just the way you brag about it and use it as a tool. I have many in my family and friends that have served, some of them even making the ultimate sacrifice and they are all humble in regards to their service.
By the way, your keyboard seems to be malfunctioning as sometimes the CAPS key sticks.
@Jana Please note that the topic WAS about South Dakota, Bill, then you, & LK, directed the topic to change to attack me personally. That is a reflection on you & them, not me. You don't need my experience to see where the problems are in the above posts. Things were civil until the rabid Alinsky tactics came out from YOU and others, not me.
YOU and others keep bringing my service up, YOU not me. YOU are the one with the problem with it, not me.
When I post a sampling of my public service to show the voters who I am and what I have done for them it is bragging? So what is a your lack of such service and your obsessive disdain of mine signify? Don't look to close, it will show you the reasons for the rabid attacks herein... and I will give you a clue, it is not my life you folks dislike... :-D
Thanks Stace.
See, you are saying that my lack of service...you obviously don't know me. But you think that if someone doesn't have a service record that then makes you better. Weird.
You know what's funny? The only people I've ever heard talk about Alinsky are the Tea Partiers and the Rabid Right. For some reason, none of the libs I know have ever read his book, let alone knew who he was.
Stay humble.
It was your claim that the federal dollars that go to the reservations shouldn't be counted as being money for South Dakota that started the conversation about you, Stace. You could have diffused it by admitting your comment was a foolish thing to say, but instead you chose to attack. Own your own BS, Stace. Otherwise you have zero credibility.
@Jana Only here can you make up the ignorant statements and paste them on some one else as if it is theirs, while hiding. Reflect on that and what type of person that makes you. I don't care what or who you are! YOU directed the comments to personal attacks, Now, shooo fly...
@Bill It is good to see you admitting that you cannot understand anything but the simplest of points. It was merely pointed out the apples and oranges were being combined to make a point that was in error from the start. Pointing out decades old treaty obligations is now racist? Strrrrrreeeeeeeetttttcccchhhhhh as hard as you can for such ignorance. Your comments about the matter reflect on you, not me. Besides, BILL where does that justify your diverting the conversation from the post and going on another one of your rabid personal attacks? That's right, it didn't.
The truth owns itself Billy, no matter how much someone pays you to corrupt it. In that I am not a paid political hack, I still have credibility. It is the reason for the rabid attack posts herein. :-D
I hadn't kept up on this thread...but just read it all (shouldn't have done that after supper).
Respect all 3 of you currently involved in the pissing contest, may not agree with all of you all of the time but respect you. I hope you keep that in mind when I say this...and I don't want or need a response.
In reading this thread Stace, Bill and Jana you are all 3 coming across as egotistical blowhards that need to have the last word.
I honestly don't think any of you are that, or mean to come across as that as you type; but none the less as someone with no pony in this race let me tell you...the egotism is stacked higher than the bullshit in this one kids and all three of you are guilty of it.
Take a step back, breathe and let it go.
Just my advise.
Shane
Gosh, was the a vile rabid attack on Bill? You are fun Stace. By the way, did you just call me ignorant? Coming from you, I will wear your scorn as a badge of honor.
Should say...Gosh, was that a vile and rabid attack on Bill?
I agree that it's probably not worth reading Shane — much less critiquing.
Thanks for your thoughts though.
Stace, why don't we give it a rest, we're giving Shane a belly ache with our belly aching.
Catch you later, all.
Thanks Shane...sorry about the dinner spoiler.
Shane,
Sorry, I should have played dead when the first snarls were launched.. :-D
Thank you Shane. Though I have to admit the blog voyeur in me was to a certain extent enjoying the pie fight. :/