Press "Enter" to skip to content

Rounds Pulls out of Siouxland Republican Women’s Forum Tuesday

The next big public forum for South Dakota's Republican U.S. Senate candidates happens Tuesday (tax day! good timing for a conservative audience!) at the Good Samaritan Jerstad Center in Sioux Falls. The Siouxland Republican Women will throw tough questions at Stace Nelson, Jason Ravnsborg, Larry Rhoden, and GOP frontrunner....

Wait, where is Mike Rounds running? An eager reader gets hold of an e-mail from the Siouxland Republican Women sent yesterday, Saturday, at about a quarter to two in the afternoon, announcing that a member of the Rounds campaign had just called and withdrawn from the forum. The SRW e-mail says Team Rounds had committed in January to attend, but "They will not be attending now due to a conflict."

Hmm... Rounds shows up for the first big joint debate among all candidates Saturday morning, and Saturday afternoon, he pulls out of the very next joint forum? Boy, that may be the clearest verdict on who didn't win yesterday's debate.

105 Comments

  1. John Tsitrian 2014.04.13

    Wow!

  2. Bert 2014.04.13

    Wow talk about no balls!

  3. Gayle 2014.04.13

    And the conflict was.......?

  4. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.13

    The performance he gave yesterday should leave him with reason to pause whether he can perform in a debate. In his column this morning one of the debate questioners, Jonathan Ellis, told of Mike Rounds jab at Stace Nelson for appearing at the joint news conference with Rick Weiland. I posted the following this morning to Mr Ellis' on line column.

    Mr Ellis, You neglected to report what Mr Nelson's response was to Mike Rounds charge about his standing with Rick Weiland at a press conference. In his closing Statement, Mr Nelson said that he will stand with anyone who will stand in opposition to the big money out of State interests who try to buy elections to work for them rather than to work for the people of South Dakota.

    You also neglected to point out that according to Mike Rounds, it was the big bad EPA that shut down the possibility of the Big Stone II Power Plant. It was in fact the Minnesota PUC that did this and it was something that sailed through Mike Rounds SD PUC with hardly a challenge.

    The following was not in my on line comments, but I want to point out that there were two very poignant testifiers to the SD PUC against Big Stone II. One was Jeanne Koster, the former head of South Dakota Peace and Justice who spoke about the effects of the increasing of autism caused by the mercury caused by the burning of coal and positing it in our water. The other was Mary Jo Stueve, the former head of South Dakota Clean Water Action, who worked tirelessly trying to save Big Stone Lake and the surrounding lakes of the ravages of that mercury.

    I found it very interesting that Mike Rounds in his closing statement referred to the fact that as State Senate Majority Leader, he got 30% Property tax relief. Is he not aware, just like Sioux Falls defeated Mayoral candidate, Greg Jamison, that not all of the taxpayers are property owners? So he was in fact shifting the tax burden to those who buy groceries, as well as other things, as well as refusing to fund education at the levels that is required by law. And he did this while South Dakota is sitting on billions in reserve funds. Did he also cut the amount of money that South Dakota was taking from the Federal Government? I don't think so. He was just like former Sioux Falls mayor, Rick Knobe, the first one in line at the federal trough when it came to getting money from the Feds.

  5. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.04.13

    South Dakota Republicans should take hard note of this! If Rounds runs for cover and is eaten up by Republicans at controlled SDNA debate, imagine him in front of live crowds at the many debates that will be proposed with Weiland.

    What a disgrace! Republicans are supposed to hold the morale high ground, not be rolling in the DC mud of corruption and crony-capitalism EB5 scandals.

    Well, this should shut those blowhards at SDWC up while they eat crow, but it will more than likely result in more potty posts to distract from Rounds weakness as a candidate.

  6. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    Yeah, I doubt they will shut up. They'd like to make as big of a mess as they can.

  7. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.04.13

    Spoke to soon, Powers is already throwing fecal matter and not surprising, ignoring Rounds cowardice.

  8. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.13

    The two party and Independent debates are not the biggest problem, Disguted. What about the way folks castigated Johnson, after his stroke for his speaking impediment? When Rounds gets on the national stage he will be eaten alive by probably 70 of his colleagues if discussing a topic. It will do him no good to talk about the fact that he cut property taxes by 30% as Senate majority leader when he increased the number of State employees by almost 1500 as governor.

  9. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    Pat knows Rounds can't win. He's just trying to hurt everyone else.

  10. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    That kids working for Bosworth.

  11. advocate 2014.04.13

    I think Rounds needs a debate coach...maybe they're hiring Cory? :)

  12. Truthwatcher 2014.04.13

    The claim that Rounds withdrew from the forum after the debate Saturday is not true. I received an invitation in the mail on Friday for a campaign office grand opening/meet and greet with Governor Rounds in Rapid City on April 15

  13. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.04.13

    Truthwatcher, I will refrain from waiving the BS flag, because it is besides the point. Rounds shows an abject disregard for answering the questions and concerns of the public, on record. Since the debate has been scheduled and confirmed since January, it is obvious that this is an intentional slight or cowardice by Rounds. I perceive the latter.

    He has avoided numerous debates intentionally. That shows a distinct lack of morale courage to address the issues with South Dakotans even as he traveled admittedly and repeatedly out of state to sell himself to lobbyists and other special interests.

  14. Gayle 2014.04.13

    How much of Rounds if from outside SD?
    South Dakota
    CONGRESSIONAL RACES IN 2014
    Race
    All Candidates
    Amount
    Raised
    Senate
    Mike Rounds (R)

    $2,185,054

    Rick Weiland (D)

    $536,267

    Annette Bosworth (R)

    $365,543

    Larry Rhoden (R)

    $100,290

    Stace Nelson (R)

    $88,520

    Larry Pressler (I)
    $29,850

    Jason Ravnsborg (R)
    $0
    District 01
    Kristi Noem (R)*

    $1,256,448

    Corinna Robinson (D)
    $43,678
    Data last updated: 04/12/2014.

    Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive

  15. All you Rounds' doubters should understand that the big conflict for Rounds 4/15 is his own event at his own campaign HQ. It is impossible to reschedule such things. Simply cannot be done.

  16. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.13

    Disgusted, You wrote, "That shows a distinct lack of morale courage to address the issues with South Dakotans even as he traveled admittedly and repeatedly out of state to sell himself to lobbyists and other special interests."

    That is the fact that shows an utter disrespect and has a sign out to the world saying, "South Dakota's vote in the US Senate is for sale, sign on her with your dollars if you want in on part of the action."

  17. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.13

    Where's that campaign HQ again?

  18. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    If Mike Rounds cared about his family at all he would get out of this race. Unfortunately he only cares about himself and he's not smart enough to realize that he is just a pawn.

  19. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.13

    We're getting a little thick with fake names here. Can we have some evidence? I have the SRW e-mail. Where's the Rounds fundraisier invite e-mail?

  20. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.13

    And "truthwatcher"'s statement does not make false any claim I make above. Maybe he scheduled two events. Maybe he waited until after yesterday's debate to decide which one he'd rather do. Evidence?

  21. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.04.13

    Grandstand (aka Rounds staffer)

    Horse pucky! It is my understanding that this SRW debate was scheduled since last October and that monthly reminders were put out to numerous Rounds staffers on the receive list.

    Rounds is running scared. He is a coward and a corrupt politician with a terrible record as a Republican. He is an embarrassment to the GOP.

  22. John Tsitrian 2014.04.13

    Rounds would rather face his supporters than his rivals. Sounds like South Dakota C.S. to me, and the C.S. doesn't stand for "common sense."

  23. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.13

    Disgusted, why limit it to Republicans. I am a Republican albeit not died in the wool. But to me, Rounds should be an embarrassment to every South Dakotan and the South Dakota media, should be ashamed of themselves for allowing him to get away with the crap which he has.

  24. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    Jonathan Ellis, drinking the kool-aid. Lol.

  25. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.13

    Given the fact that the GOP both locally and nationally have such a diminished of women and their rights, it is difficult to comprehend why any woman would join such a blatantly sexist party.

  26. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    Such problems of prejudice are flaws of the individual. To say that a group as a whole suffers from a particular personality defect is in itself a demonstration of extreme and irrational prejudice. It is especially hypocritical to hear that claim coming from a member of the party of Jim Crow in reference to my own party - the party of Frederick Douglass.

  27. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    Not to mention the fact that women's suffrage was a Republican movement.

  28. mike from iowa 2014.04.13

    Roger is quite right when you consider the states that are restricting women's reproductive rights,refusing to give equal pay opportunuties,making voting harder and also taking foodstamps away9since most households collecting SNAP benefits are single women with children).

  29. rick 2014.04.13

    If candidates so disrespect citizens that they refuse debates to explain their records and answer questions before the election, what makes you think they'll respect citizens after they get elected?

    What does the former Republican governor have to hide from the Siouxland Republican Women?

  30. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    I'd love to hear what he makes up next on camera. Lol.

  31. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.13

    nailed it Rick.

  32. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.13

    Bree,
    We can debate the Civil War to Jim Crow to the Civil Rights Act. and throw the Equal Rights Amendment in there as well, until the end of time. We all know the role our parties played in the evolution of equality.
    Somewhere along the line, the Republican Party parted from what they once represented, there is no contesting that.
    As a party, the GOP this past week defeated the equal pay act, as Mike from Iowa stated there is the ongoing GOP intervention of women's reproductive rights and healthcare. The Republican state legislature attempted to add more burdens to women's health issue with such nonsense as gender selection abortions and Phil Jensen's attempt to legalize discrimination.
    All these attempts to legislate against women are for the purpose of control. Add to this the Republican activists working diligently to suppress voters (i.e. Jason Gant) and you have a party, not just individuals, with an agenda.
    The demographics of the 2012 presidential election told a clear story, minorities went overwhelming Democrat, working and single mothers went for Democrats as well.
    Nearly every demographic showed that the Republican Party as too exclusive.
    Yes Bree, the Republicans were abolitionist, fought the south to preserve the union, fought Jim Crow laws, and fought for the Civil Rights Act. Under Reagan, they also fought against the Equal Rights Amendment. That is the history. There are state and national Republican politicians this very week calling for repeal of the Civil Rights Act and think a free market system that will naturally do the work of the government.
    My question remains, where did the Republican Party as a whole get so seriously reversed in the fight for equality?

  33. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    I'm not in the mood for your topic change Roger. I don't consider the ability to murder my own child to be a freedom that needs protecting. I recommend that people who want to engage in casual sex use protection otherwise they might as well adorn themselves in banana leaves and go eat bugs in the wilderness as that would more appropriately represent their level of civilized development.

  34. Jessie 2014.04.13

    Cory, that office in Rapid is just an office, wherever it is. The HQ is here in Pierre on the corner of Highland and Capitol. So it's not like he's launching his main office.

  35. SDBlue 2014.04.13

    Therein lies the rub, Bree. The GOP does not want women to have an abortion or access to affordable contraception. So what is a woman to do? Sex for procreation only went out with the 1950's. If you think only casual sex leads to an abortion, I question your level of civilized development.

  36. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.13

    I think that Republican women are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome.

    Bree had a choice, fortunately she made the right one.

  37. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.13

    Roger and SD Blue and others are right about the Republican parties treatment of women. Political parties change over time. The Democratic Party has changed too.

    It is Republicans who wanted to force vaginal penetration with a medical device. Some women disagree, but most view that as forcible rape. Republicans want to control women's bodies and terribly diminish our autonomy and humanity.

    I will never support any politician or organization that wants to diminish other human beings.

    The Republican party is the party of Old White Men. That won't change until they make a conscientious effort to welcome and accept a wide variety of people Just As They Are, without imposing any limits on them Whatsoever.

  38. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.13

    The saddest part of this whole issue, is that back when Roe became the law of the land, and suddenly abortion became something that was talked about in Church, good Republican women who took the woman's side rather than the Church's side were ostracized and were no longer welcome in the hierarchy of the party.

  39. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    SDBlue, sex is enjoyable because it encourages procreation and the continuation of our species. The fact that you think you can redefine the obvious natural purpose of sex into "just for fun" and combine that with the sacrifice of innocent children on the altar of selfish hedonism is horrifying to me. Buy a condom, and if that fails have the humanity to give God's own child up for adoption to one of the thousands of couples unable to have children of their own.

  40. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    By the way, the we-should-be-able-to-murder-children-because-rape argument gets old. I'm for any restriction on abortions or compromise that saves children including abortion allowed in case of rape etc. That would save 99% of all the children in this country murdered by their own mothers. Imagine the horror of the watching universe, seeing how we treat God's own children.

  41. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.13

    Bree, you wrote, " Buy a condom, and if that fails have the humanity to give God's own child up for adoption to one of the thousands of couples unable to have children of their own."

    Ah, but therein lies the crux of the problem. That is your definition of what is moral. Some churches and thereby some of their constituents teach that use of a condom is immoral. Everyone will have to answer to their God for the decisions they make, not the ones that are forced upon them by a church or by certain members of their church.

  42. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.13

    Bree, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation? Do you believe that it's wrong/sinful for people to have sex simply for the physical pleasure, emotional intimacy and psychic satisfaction?

    There is an immense canyon between your view of sexual intercourse and that of probably most of the population. Do you think that, as an American citizen, you should advocate politically for your opinions to be forced on the rest of the population, regardless of what they believe?

    If your answer to the last is yes, does it follow that the duty of each American is to do the same? If so, it also follows that what you are advocating for is complete uniformity. Do you see such uniformity as a positive step?

  43. mike from iowa 2014.04.13

    I know lots of married and/or committed couples who are expecting and yet they still enjoy mattress thrashing,not to stock up on babies,just because of the joy and thrill of recreational horizontal bopping. It feels good,they do it. Pure,unadulterated,guilt-free fooling around.

  44. mike from iowa 2014.04.13

    For anyone out there that believes abortion is wrong,did you need someone from the government to tell you not to have an abortion?

  45. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    There is no greater sin than murdering your own child. By making such a horrifying decision you have not just made a grievous error, you have permanently changed the direction of the universe and you have created a problem only a God can solve. Even if you should come to realize how greatly you have strayed, how terribly you have erred, those children will never reach their a Eternal Father.

  46. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    (ignore erroneous a's)

  47. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.13

    Fortunately for Americans, sex is the one thing the government hasn't been able to control or regulate. With good reason.
    Churches make attempts to control sex by telling their flocks what kind of sex is a sin and what kind isn't, likely to avail as people keep having sex, protected or otherwise. How many of the flock will have illicit sex on a Friday night and go to church on Sunday and act as if nothing happened.
    I wouldn't presume to preach to anyone about what kind of sex is acceptable and what is not, all I can realistically hope for is that people are well informed about sex and that they use protection if necessary, not just to stop a pregnancy, but protection from disease.
    I don't have that much to say about abortion, given the fact that I will never have to make that choice. That is a choice that is clearly the divine province of a woman.

  48. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.13

    Bree, would you please answer my questions?

  49. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.13

    Deb.
    Apparently Bree isn't in mood for questions. I asked her earlier about the drastic change the Republican Party made from pro civil rights to its current record on women's rights and civil rights. No answer there either.

  50. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    Deb, it's pretty simple. Murdering children is a sin. Having sex is a physical activity that often leads to children. Murder is not an acceptable response to the consequence of pregnancy.

  51. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.13

    That's only a small part of what I asked you, Bree. Would you like me to repeat my questions for you?

  52. Bree S. 2014.04.13

    Let's see... Five words into it and yes you misunderstand me. We are discussing murder and not sex. The murder of children, which deprives them of the potential knowledge of their Eternal Father, is always a sin. There is no gray area here. Always. A. Sin. This is not some item of culture that is subject to redefinition or acceptable cultural change. Sex is the physical activity of which children are a natural consequence. The conversation I'm having with you is like me saying raping women is wrong and you asking if I'm okay with sex. Just because sex is the required activity for rape does not make rape acceptable because sex is.

  53. Les 2014.04.13

    One issue Democrats, turn out to thrash a conservative who supports them on many fronts, but won't gouge out her eyes to prove up.
    .
    I thought this post was about a GOP debate?

  54. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.13

    Alright Bree, here again is what I asked you, based on your own earlier comments:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bree, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation? Do you believe that it's wrong/sinful for people to have sex simply for the physical pleasure, emotional intimacy and psychic satisfaction?

    There is an immense canyon between your view of sexual intercourse and that of probably most of the population. Do you think that, as an American citizen, you should advocate politically for your opinions to be forced on the rest of the population, regardless of what they believe?

    If your answer to the last is yes, does it follow that the duty of each American is to do the same? If so, it also follows that what you are advocating for is complete uniformity. Do you see such uniformity as a positive step?

  55. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.13

    Les, since when has any thread on Madville adhered to a strict policy of staying on topic?

  56. Les 2014.04.14

    Yes Roger, staying on topic, an inconvenience for SD Democrats. How'd that work for Herseth?

  57. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.14

    Les,

    Staying on topic or answering direct questions (i.e. SDNA debate).

  58. Bree S. 2014.04.14

    "Bree, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation? Do you believe that it's wrong/sinful for people to have sex simply for the physical pleasure, emotional intimacy and psychic satisfaction?"

    We are not discussing sex, Deb. We are discussing the murder of children. Your attempts to blow smoke on the issue are not going to make murdering children acceptable in the eyes of God.

  59. BIll DIthmer 2014.04.14

    It's time for the return of cardboard Mike

    The Blindman

  60. jerry 2014.04.14

    The so called "children" have not drawn a breath of air so if an abortion occurs, it is certainly not murder. So says passages in the Bible you supposedly live by. Sex is what the zealots hate without procreation. To them, sex just for the enjoyment of it, makes no sense.

  61. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.14

    Lanny, that's a great response on property tax cuts, that in South Dakota that just means shifting the burden to other taxpayers. I suspect there's some class warfare going on there, Rounds trying to win the vote of wealthy property holders and dismissing the concerns of working-class renters.

    Bill: indeed! Where is cardboard Mike! So easily crumpled!

  62. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.14

    John, you should go to that Rapid City event and see if you can ask the candidate any questions.

  63. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.14

    Les, it was. Digressions happen.

    Jessie, thanks for the geography. Main fact is, Rounds is reneging on a commitment he made to the Siouxland Republican Women in favor of an event of his own creation. Not cool!

  64. John Tsitrian 2014.04.14

    Thanks for the idea, Cory, but I'd feel like a duck in a henhouse if I showed up.

  65. Les 2014.04.14

    If Boz did anything for this primary event, she brought the humor of Cardboard Mike. Get your composition to CM back up Blindman.

  66. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.14

    So you are refusing to answer my questions Bree. Okay. Recall that You are the commenter who brought the sexual act into this thread. There is no smoke coming from me.

  67. Bree S. 2014.04.14

    Sex is a physical act, Deb. It is something that occurs in the physical world and leaves no ripples in the next. You might as well ask me if I think farting and walking are evil too. These are also physical acts. Now if you choose to walk off a cliff it's not very smart. Also, if you don't want children and you have unprotected sex that is also not very smart. However, walking and sex are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    The murder of children is a sin. The murder of children is always a sin. There is no excuse for murdering children. There is no reason that makes it okay. How that child was created is irrelevant. If you murder a child before he grows to consciousness you have deprived him of the potential to know his Eternal Father.

    Let me repeat myself Deb. Your questions are completely irrelevant. They are completely immaterial to the horror that is murdering children. I have better things to do with my time than discuss the "psychic satisfaction" of sex with you.

  68. Bill Dithmer 2014.04.14

    I dont keep those things around Les or I would.

    Now, wouldn't cardboard Mike be more effect if it was a picture of Smilen Mike with his back to the audience? After all he really doesn't give a damn about the people he made a commitment to. It looks like a commitment for Mike is only as good as the money involved.

    I guess it's only a bunch of women.

    The Blindman

  69. Eve Fisher 2014.04.14

    "If you murder a child before he grows to consciousness you have deprived him of the potential to know his Eternal Father." Either a fetus is a full human being, and thus has an immortal soul already created and known by God and knows God, and thus, when aborted goes straight to heaven; OR a fetus is not a full human being and thus having an abortion is removing cells as in removing a tumor. You can't have it both ways, Bree. And there is no church or religion that I have ever heard of that teaches that anyone is rejected by God because of how they died. Please stop using this argument.

  70. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.14

    Cory, You wrote, "Lanny, that's a great response on property tax cuts, that in South Dakota that just means shifting the burden to other taxpayers. I suspect there's some class warfare going on there, Rounds trying to win the vote of wealthy property holders and dismissing the concerns of working-class renters."

    If you remember when there was going to be a shortage of funds in 2011, there was not one person in the governor's office or legislature who had the cajones (or maybe with so many ladies in the legislature) I should say temerity to suggest taking the freeze off property taxes rather than cutting education to the point that they did, but there was discussion about putting on another penny sales tax for six months. That is/would have been the most regressive thing that they could have done for the economy, although it would have hurt again, those with the least.

  71. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.14

    Bree, you are not responding to me. Your responses aren't to the questions I asked.

    You have been crystal clear that you are passionately opposed to abortion. I have heard you. I believe that you sincerely mean what you are saying.

    I'm not asking you about abortion.

    I am asking you about this statement you made: ". . . sex is enjoyable because it encourages procreation and the continuation of our species. The fact that you think you can redefine the obvious natural purpose of sex into "just for fun". . . "

    I read that and wanted further clarification so that I understand you correctly, so I followed up with this question addressed to you: "Bree, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation? Do you believe that it's wrong/sinful for people to have sex simply for the physical pleasure, emotional intimacy and psychic satisfaction?"

    That's the path of our conversation. If you are unwilling to respond to my follow up, I'll accept that. It's your evasions that are frustrating to me. Especially since I know you can be very direct when you want to be.

  72. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    Deb says:

    "Bree, you are not responding to me. Your responses aren't to the questions I asked."

    I say:

    "Let me repeat myself Deb. Your questions are completely irrelevant. They are completely immaterial to the horror that is murdering children. I have better things to do with my time than discuss the "psychic satisfaction" of sex with you."

    Murdering children is always a sin and such practice will come to an end.

  73. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    Deb, I choose the path. Not you.

  74. Bill Fleming 2014.04.15

    Hmm.. Interesting. Maybe Bree is trying to tell us that when she has sex just for fun, it's irrelevant. Can't tell if she also thinks it's irreverent. Maybe that's none of our business? That would be right, wouldn't it? Other people's sex is none of our business. But wait. She wants her government to be able to force her and her sisters to bear children against their will. Something ain't matchin' up here, Bree. Please explain.

  75. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    Having sex is a personal choice. Having sex when you don't want the natural consequence of sex (children) is also a personal choice. Having sex when you don't want children and also not using appropriate precautions is another personal choice. If the outcome of such free will unforced decision making should be the creation of a potential child of God, murdering that child instead of giving it to adoptive parents is a sin, an act of pure evil. Murdering children is never acceptable in the eyes of God.

    There are idiots in this world dumb enough to walk off a cliff. No one forced them to engage is such incredibly risky behavior, and dropping a nuclear bomb to get rid of cliffs so no one can walk off one is not the answer.

  76. larry kurtz 2014.04.15

    Genocide is the act of murdering children not your color: perfectly acceptable in South Dakota. Rich women have full reproductive liberties while those at lower incomes do not.

  77. larry kurtz 2014.04.15

    The suicide rate spike under Rounds/Daugaard is a crime.

  78. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    If you want to discuss genocide Larry I'm perfectly happy to expound upon the horror that is Margaret Sanger, who spoke at Klan rallies.

  79. larry kurtz 2014.04.15

    Stace Nelson speaks with Gordon Howie: same diff.

  80. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    Howie has some friends that aren't really friends. It's his choice to see or ignore the danger.

  81. larry kurtz 2014.04.15

    Planned Parenthood is not the only provider of women's health care, Bree. Rich women can go to any clinic they wish to exercise their reproductive liberties.

  82. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    And if Planned Parenthood stops grinding up babies in garbage disposals then the other services they provide to the community would be acceptable. But they will fight the end of that regime tooth and nail.

  83. larry kurtz 2014.04.15

    And if Monsanto, Dow and your inlaws stop grinding up habitats in garbage disposals then the other services they provide to the community would be acceptable. But they will fight the end of that regime tooth and nail.

  84. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    Federal law is destroying prairie habitat by forcing us against our will to create man made wetland on the farm. We have no legal way to end the destruction.

    I see Rosebud is standing up to the machine. Good for them.

  85. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    A mother feeds her children before she cleans the house.

  86. larry kurtz 2014.04.15

    Mike Rounds is making an ass of himself of Bill Janklow's idea of public radio:

  87. owen reitzel 2014.04.15

    actually I think abortion represents abot 2% percent of what Planned Parenthood does.
    They provide women with mammograms who otherwise can't afford them. Just to name one.

  88. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    As you can tell from the chart, Planned Parenthood might want to rework its business model. Killing babies is about to become unprofitable.

  89. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

  90. mike from iowa 2014.04.15

    Larry K-Ryan's last budget was similar to this one. 5 trillion cuts in domestic spending and 4.3 trillion in tax cuts for his wealthy buds. Saved a grand total of 700 billion while brutally punishing the poorest.

  91. Bill Fleming 2014.04.15

    Bree, I followed you, and agreed with you right up to this sentence: "If the outcome of such free will unforced decision making should be the creation of a potential child of God..."

    What does it mean?

    Specifically, who is doing the "creation?"

    And what do you mean by "potential?"

    Let's start there.

    And please, go slow.

    Because you started out so logically, and then kind of went off into the ozone on me.

    Thanks.

    BF

  92. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.15

    Bree wrote, "If you want to discuss genocide Larry I'm perfectly happy to expound upon the horror that is Margaret Sanger, who spoke to the Klu Klux Klan".

    While I admire your historical knowledge, I also find that you lack a sense of history. Granted Margaret Sanger did some pretty bizarre and ridiculous things for her time, she did open the whole debate on birth control and contraception, some of which you have agreed with.

    It should be noted that Margaret Sanger didn't advocate for abortion, she advocated birth control. In fact, Planned Parenthood did start performing abortions until well after her death in the 1960"s.

    Earlier in this thread we had an exchange concerning the historical role Democrats and Republicans played in the fight for civil rights. You rightly pointed out that Democrats founded the KKK, Republicans fought against Jim Crow laws, and pursued the Civil Rights Act under a Democratic President. You also stated that it was Republicans that along with Margaret Sanger and others launched womens' suffrage (i.e. Ronald Reagan vigorously opposed the Equal Rights Amendment).

    I asked you at what point in history did the Republican Party, that was once a bastion of women's and civil rights,
    become the party of today? The party that at every turn tries to legislate women's health, works diligently to prevent minorities from voting, denial of healthcare for the poorest of people, etc. What happened to that party? Did it start with Reagan declaring war on women with his strong opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment? What happened?

  93. Bree S. 2014.04.15

    Bill Fleming, I am aware that I lost you at the point of creation and that you will never understand the meaning of "a potential child of God." However, since the majority of the country believes in God, I haven't lost them.

  94. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.15

    So Bree refuses to clarify her earlier comment. Noted. Moving on.

    Let's try this one:

    Bree said, ". ., .majority of the country believes in God, . ."

    But the majority, even in very conservative SD, does not support a total and complete ban on all abortions. Could it be that being a Christian does not equal blanket disaproval of all abortions? Looks like it to me.

  95. Bill Fleming 2014.04.15

    You imply things in your language that I don't think you mean. Just asking for clarity. Did the reckless sex create the child. And if so, is that why it is potential and not actually? I'm catholic by the way.

  96. grudznick 2014.04.15

    Bill, you know it's the juice mixers doing the creation and the "potential" applies to Mrs. S and Mr. Howie's ability to brainwash the little nugget into their cult. Right, Mrs. S?

  97. grudznick 2014.04.15

    Ms. Geelsdottir/, there is no god.

  98. larry kurtz 2014.04.15

    just goddesses, grud. face down in those gravy taters, k?

  99. grudznick 2014.04.15

    Larry, you know I've been prostrated by the agonies again. Check with my other friend Bill on some new updates.

  100. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.15

    Grudz, tell that to Bree.

Comments are closed.