We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Gordon Howie, Please Quit

South Dakotans will not get to celebrate Confederate History Month with their own reƫnactment of secession. Gordon Howie's last-ditch attempt to nullify health insurance reform has failed, with petitioneers gathering only half of the necessary 16,776 signatures necessary to place the initiative on the November ballot.

Wait, did I say last-ditch? Apparently when it comes to declaring state law superior to federal law, last-ditch isn't in Senator Howie's vocabulary. Neither is quit, or lose gracefully. Having lost three times now (the South Dakota Senate soundly rejected this bad legislation twice) The gubernatorial candidate and self-proclaimed teabagger now says he'll continue gathering signatures to take to Pierre to bolster his demand that the Legislature take up his nullification crusade again next year... or maybe even in a special session this year.

Gordon, stop. There comes a time to admit defeat and move on to other issues. Other senators make proposals that go nowhere during the legislative session, and they have the grace and good sense not to wage futile petition drives and go grandstanding around the state for the rest of the year on it. Can you demonstrate a little gubernatorial statesmanship and do the same?

Obviously not. Gordon Howie knows he can't win the governor's primary on practical South Dakota issues, not against wonks like Dennis Daugaard, Dave Knudson, and Scott Munsterman. (Watch Gord's YouTube campaign video, see how little relevance his slogan collage has to specific South Dakota issues.) Howie has not one practical solution for governing this state.

So Howie has only one way to win: he has to gin up supporters by aping Tea Party mantras on national issues that the South Dakota governor really can't do anything about but which are a lot more fun to scream about while wearing a tri-corner hat. (Try reading Dennis Daugaard's economic plan or Scott Munsterman's policy briefs the way Sarah-Palinites screamed about death panels—it just doesn't work.)

The dead legislation Howie keeps flogging, this year's Senate Bill 137, also happens to be unnecessary. South Dakota is already suing Uncle Sam to overturn health insurance reform. The lawsuit is based on the same constitutional arguments Howie hollers to justify his bill. If the federal health insurance law is unconstitutional, we won't need a state law to nullify it: the courts will find in favor of Jackley et al., the law wil be overturned, and there will be nothing for South Dakota to nullify. If the courts rules against the suing states (and that's the smart money), the courts would also rule against Howie's nullificatory bil.

Howie's endless nullification campaign is, therefore, a cynical publicity stunt. He knows further petitioning is legislatively futile. It's a Saul-Alinsky-style organizing tactic, a chance for his supporters to shout "Obama is Hitler!" and stay all juiced up long enough to vote in the Republican primary. It is a ploy to distract South Dakotans from practical state issues that Howie just can't handle.

If Howie were really interested in governing, he'd show some statesmanship and let health reform nullification die. But Tea Bag ranting is all Howie has to offer... and that's proof that he can't hold a candle to any of the other men, Republican or Democrat, who want to govern South Dakota.


  1. Good morning Cory:

    Pat published the ballot positions, Howie is last: http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/12498

    Do you know the how the process works? I noticed Nelson drew last, too.

  2. Perhaps you would rather Gen. Washington have just quit after losing New York City. Or perhaps after Brandywine. Washington did a lot of losing in those early times...yet he knew our freedom was at stake, and the fight was worth it, so he stuck with it.

    Our freedom is at stake here against this freedom-robbing unconstitutional government health care scheme. Perhaps you enjoy having government bureaucrats make decisions for you and tell you how to live your life, but I must inform you that patriotic Americans do not enjoy these things. They enjoy the right to self-determination, to run their own lives and make their own decisions, to provide for themselves.

    Maybe you just can't understand how important these things are to Americans, but your inability to appreciate freedom in no way justifies surrender in the face of tyranny. If the judges choose to ignore the U.S. Constitution as congress and the president have, the current lawsuit may fail. We need another line of defense against this assault on our freedom and property. Even if the same oath-breaking judges would rule against the people on Howie's proposal, it would buy us more time...until we can replace the socialist usurpers in congress with oath-keeping representatives and repeal this monstrosity.

    The people of South Dakota are getting a real clear picture of which gubernatorial candidates care so little about the freedom of the people they won't lift a finger to do anything in the face of tyranny..and which one is willing to go to the mat for their liberty and not give up.

  3. Cori,

    Progressives fought for over 60 years and continue to fight for universal health care in this country. Would you look at them and say 60 years is enough, go find a new windmill?

    You may not believe in what he sees, but cheer him on as I cheer you on when you take stands that I disagree with. The extreme positions are the positions that cause public debate, and when done civily help those that vote intelligently to make a decision.

    Shock of shock's. If you have been following the polls and believe any of them, those "revolting, raciest, gun toting, Bible thumping Tea Baggers" may be more main stream
    then the progresive movement in America.
    Joseph G Thompson

  4. Mr. Ellis Your comparison of Gordon Howie to George Washington is ludicrous at best.How can you expect anyone to take your post seriously , when you start it out like that?

  5. Here is a youtube video of Gordon Howie limiting the first amendment rights of the people at a Tea party rally.

    Sheer hypocrisy if I have ever seen it.

  6. Larry, actually, Pastor Hickey posted the ballot positions last week. DWC is falling behind. ;-)

    The ballot order is drawn by lot by the official with whome petitions are filed: Sec. of State does state offices, County Auditor does county offices, and so on (SDCL 12-16-8). Chris Nelson himself drew the numbers that put him last on the ballot.

    Bob: tyranny... can't understand... oath-breaking... yeah, yeah, heard it all before. Let's both drop the histrionics and focus on one practical question: how is SB 137 not redundant to Jackley et al.'s lawsuit?

  7. You are right Cori,SB 137 is beating a dead horse, but that is what politicians do.

    Mr. Ellis, I take exception to you using phrases like, "Judges choose to ignore the Constitution", "Oath breaking judges", "Socialist usurpers". The extreme side of the Tea Party does a great disservice to the vast majority of people like me, who support in principle many of the stands the movement takes but will not become involved because people like you use the language that you use and in some cases historically inaccurate facts
    to support your case. Progressives do it so.

    The Surpreme Court establishes the law of the land, you don't have to like it and there is a way to change it called an amendment.

    I oppose abortion with all my heart and fruitlessly with my checkbook, but if a friend told me she wanted and abortion, but was afraid to go alone, I would go with her and protect her right to an abortion. Would try to talk her out of it but first and foremost I am here to protect her rights. That is what being an American is all about Mr. Elllis.
    Joseph G Thompson

  8. Barry, I didn't compare Gordon Howie to George Washington, and only a liberal making a weak attempt to avoid the truth would claim so.

    Since everything has to be spelled out for liberals, allow me:

    Cory claimed that Howie and those of us who refuse to take this assault on our freedoms lying down should quit because we have not met with success on our previous attempts to guard against this unconstitutional monstrosity.

    I responded with a lesson that because one experiences failures or setbacks, one should not throw in the towel--especially when our freedom is on the line.

    Does that help? Or are you inclined to proffer more feeble liberal obfuscation?

  9. Barry, I see you've been at it again with the link to video from last year's Tax Day Tea Party.

    Why don't you do something refreshing and surprising in a liberal and just be honest? Come on, throw us a real curve ball and for a change don't try to distort or misrepresent.

    Howie was not acting as a government official, nor was he quashing First Amendment rights. I know this is difficult for rebellious liberals to understand, but when a private group holds an event, they have a right and an obligation to ensure their message is not distorted by troublemakers. The people who came to the event because they support it deserve no less.

  10. Cory, I know you've heard these things before, but like a petulant child, you refuse to embrace reality. Obstinate people who refuse to accept what is right must keep hearing the truth so that it may eventually sink in.

    As I have explained before, the lawsuit filed by AG Jackley and 18 other states is primarily centered on the affront to the states. SB 137, while not ignoring states rights, is more broadly concerned with the rights of the people themselves. It is important we have this additional line of defense in the event oath-breaking judges shoot down the state's lawsuit. SB 137 would buy us additional time and protection from the unconstitutional government health care legislation until the American people can throw out the socialists later this year and repeal this affront to America.

  11. Mr. Thompson, frankly I don't care that you take exception to accurate descriptions of judges and other officials who ignore the Constitution, break their oaths and attempt to usurp the freedoms of the American people. Your discomfort with reality does not compel me to placate your unease.

    You might want to do a little brush-up on your studies, because the Supreme Court does not establish the law in America; you are confusing our constitutional republic with an oligarchy.

    Our legislative branch is tasked with passing laws that are in harmony with the Constitution, the president signs such constitutional bills into law, and the Supreme Court adjudicates compliance with those constitutional laws--and if they are not in compliance with the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the final line of defense against constitutional usurpation.

    The evidence is overwhelming that all three branches of government have been derelict in their duty and their oaths for too long...and the American people are moving to begin holding them accountable finally. That move is exemplified in the Tea Party movement.

    Finally, I'm not sure how abortion directly relates to this issue (other than the fact that Democrats managed to weasel in taxpayer funding for it), but I find it appalling that you claim on one hand that you oppose abortion, but on the other say you would facilitate the murder of an innocent child. Do you oppose child molestation, but support the right of molesters to exercise their "choice"? Do you oppose theft but support the right of thieves to exercise their "choice"? I hope not.

    Apparently you don't have the slightest clue what being an American is all about, and I haven't seen any evidence in your comments which indicates you agree at all with anything the Tea Party movement stands for. The Tea Party movement is better off without you. Someone might see you with us and assume that we are all as misguided as you.

  12. My apologies Mr.Ellis . You are correct. A private group such as the Tea Party does have a right to restrict the free flow of ideas.

    By thine own sword.

  13. I think you meant to say, Barry, that a private group has the right to maintain control and consistency of its own message. But I appreciate the attempt at honesty. It's a refreshing surprise in these parts. :-)

  14. Mr. Ellis,
    You have paid me the highest compliment anyone has paid me in a long time.

    Anyone who knows who I am knows that I stand against extremism of any kind. I hate all ism's except Americanism.

    I love it when people tell others that I know nothing about being an American, people who know me, know better.

    The problem with the "Tea Party" movement,especially in South Dakota,is the hijacking of the movement by the ultra right. Read my past posts here in defense of the "Tea Party" movement before you make rash statements.

    Congress legislates laws, the President signs those laws, both based on their beliefs as to what is Constitutional and those laws then become the law of the land unless they are challenged in Court and then the U.S. Supreme determines wheither that law is in fact the law of the land or if it is un-Constitutional. You don't decide and I don't decide, as Americans we support the Constitution and the law of the land.

    Child molestation and theft are not the law of the land, but anyone who has ever swore allengience to the Constitution is honor bound to protect those who wish to exercise their consitutional rights, and at this time abortion is their Constitutional right, hopefully at some point in time that will change but until it does....Practice what you preach.

    You live in your "reality" and I live in mine. I respect your right to live in yours but you apparently do not respect the rights of others to live in a reality that does not agree with yours.

    Joseph G Thompson

  15. Mr Thompson, I can only go on what you said in your previous comment here, and nothing in that comment gave many the slightest assurance that you believe in anything the Tea Party movement is for. In fact, by what I suspect is your definition of the "far right," the Tea Party IS the "far right." We are the ones who demand that the Constitution be obeyed (not "interpretations" not "different views" of the Constitution--but the clear and plain Constitution). We are the ones who demand tax restraint and financial responsibility from all levels of government. We are the ones who demand that the limited-government foundations of our state and nation be adhered to. That makes us, by the popular definition, "the far right."

    Apparently you hold the view that whatever is "legal" is right, and whatever our lords and masters in the federal government decree is their "interpretation" of the Constitution is legal. Ergo, anything they tell us to do is legal and moral.

    I hope now that you have it laid out for you, you realize how incredibly dangerous such sloppy thinking is. For instance, this socialist health care bill has decreed that theft is now legal. And if our lords and masters in Washington were for whatever reason to declare that child molestation were legal (many of them claim two men can be "married," so don't say it'll never happen), then I suppose you would walk in mindless obedience and render aid to any child molesters that crossed your path and requested your assistance.

    You do indeed have a rather unique "reality." Thank God I and most Americans live in the genuine one.

  16. Mr. Ellis,
    You confuse legality and morality.
    It used to be legal to own slaves in America, but while legal it was certainly immoral and understood to be so by most of the founding fathers,so as we as nation matured (and with a little help from the War of Rebellion)we outlawed slavery. The morals of a people and of a nation change, and as those morals change so do the laws of that nation, that is a reality you must live with, didn't say you had to like it and didn't say you shouldn't argue against those changes but you should do it rationaly and with an understanding that it is the law of the land.

    Have said this to Cori and I'll say it to you, but I expect the opposite reaction from you. I was taught along time ago that if you can't itelligently argue both sides of a question then you lack the intelligence to argue either side. Bombastic name calling is not intelligent arguement.

    Your belief that only the ultra conservative(right) stand up for the Constitution is faulty. This great nation of ours was founded by some of the greatest liberal(left wing) minds the world has ever known or will ever know, your conservatism is based on the most liberal political document in the world.

    Yeah, my liberal beliefs go so far as to believe that the Declaration of Independence gives me all the authority I need to take up arms against the established government.
    I am a patriot if I win and a traitor if I lose. Guess that makes me an ultra right winger today. How about you?

    My politcal idol is Barry Goldwater, a true liberal/conservative. I'll end this with the most misunderstood statement ever made in American politics. Spoken by James Stockdale during the Vice Presidental debates, it certainly applies to what I have written today,"Who am I?" "Why am I here?"

    Joseph G Thompson

  17. Mr. Thompson, apparently it is you who is confused about legality and morality.

    Sadly, the morality of a nation does change. Ours is proof; we have radically gone downhill in the past 50 years. But that is another issue.

    By your "logic," slavery was moral as long as it was legal. You imply that abortion is moral because it is legal, and you can't have it both ways. Many people recognized slavery was immoral long before it became illegal, and now many people recognize that abortion is immoral even though it is legal.

    So unless you're willing to admit that your support of abortion is immoral (and people who support or defend immoral things seldom admit they are immoral), then you are supporting an immoral act--the murder of innocent human beings.
    I should also clarify that I don't believe that only the "ultra conservative" stand up for the Constitution. There are a large number of moderately conservative people who support and defend the Constitution, too. Unfortunately, the only time I see liberals defending the Constitution is when they can pervert the First Amendment into excusing obscenity, or look at it in a mirror to quash the religious liberty it was designed to protect, and sometimes to get criminals off on technicalities. But there is far, far more to the U.S. Constitution than the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

    I'm not sure why I've continued to bother with you. You obviously are logic-challenged. You have admitted you are a liberal. And it was apparent from your first comment that you don't fit with the Tea Party movement despite your claims of sympathy. The only question that tweaks my idle curiosity at this point is this: were you trying to fool others with your claims of Tea Party sympathy, or are you just fooling yourself?

  18. Ellis shows what happens when you take Goldwater's exhortation to its logical extreme. Sure, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. But it also means you lose the election.

    Joseph, I suspect you can see the pattern in Ellis's rhetoric as clearly as I can: berate those who disagree, declare they are confused, unpatriotic, rebellious (why does Bob use that word pejoratively against liberals but as a virtue to praise among his own people?), petulantly childish, and, ultimately, not worth bothering with. I could write a computer program that could automatically generate Ellis's responses for him. I could also guarantee the failure of any politicial movement by following his hateful, exclusionary tactics.

    [The next thing Ellis writes will essentally boil down to, "I know you are but what am I.]

    But this isn't about Bob! It's about a politician who can't win a statewide election milking a publicity stunt for all it's worth. And Bob admits that Howie's law does not add any substantive effect to the Constitution; it is merely a political ploy to delay democracy and justice.

  19. I wonder if Knudson and Daugaard are in support of Howie's mission here? Or Munsterman? Maybe we should ask them, Cory.

    Is this really the Republican position?

  20. I find Mr. Ellis's commentary to be offensive and intolerant, as I am confident that the vast majority of Americans would.
    All the more important that he have a forum in which he can enlighten us to his thinking.
    Thank you for providing that forum, Mr. Heidelberger

  21. No Cori, Mr. Ellis does not preach liberty. He peaches the liberty as defined by him. Like I said, I know many Tea Party believers and none are like Mr. Eillis. Sadly, Mr Ellis and the people that speak and argue without logic like Mr. Ellis, do not represent most of the people I know. Mr. Ellis and his followers, will take their Tea Party down the same path the Libertarian Party has walked in South Dakota.

    Sorry for the number of posts but I really need to see who this guy was. He learned nothing about about me, but I learned a tremendous amount about him.
    Joseph G. Thompson

  22. Joseph, you're still learning, because you have the remarkable ability to open your mouth without closing your ears.

    Bill, darn good question! I too would like to know whether Daugaard, Knudson, Munsterman, and Knuppe are interested in re&enacting the Civil War (or the Revolutionary War, or whatever war powers Howie's fantasies) more than in practicing practical governance.

    And Barry—I'm glad to help! (And since hardly anyone reads Bob's blog, it's all the more important we give his views a little exposure to the cleansing sunlight of a broader audience. ;-) )

  23. I really enjoy reading Joseph G. Thompson's posts. Clear as a bell, that guy. Thanks for your efforts here, Joseph.

  24. Mr. Fleming,
    I appreciate your comment. Please do not think that that I am a supporter of the progressive wing of the Democratic party because I am not. The name calling is just as bad on the progressive side.
    I was a registered Libertarian for many years until I retired and returned to South Dakota and saw how wacked they were here. There are many State Tea Party movements I could belong too, but South Dakota's is not one of them.

    Ignorance is the greatest threat to the freedoms we have. That ignorance exists not only in elements of the Tea Party movement, but also in the progressive wing of the Democratic party, and I do do my best to expose it, as Cori knows because I have said some pretty harsh things to him both on his blog, in conversation and e-mails.

    Every word I wrote is the truth on how I feel, and anyone who knows me, regardless of their politics, was smiling after Mr. Elllis's first comment about me.

    Joseph G Thompson

  25. Cory, I suspect you see a pattern in my denunciation of your corrosive ideas that you don't like: identify bad ideas, call them what they are, sweep aside faulty logic and articulate the correct path. I know you would rather I refuse to call bad "bad" or Marxist philosophy "Marxist" or liberal ideas "liberal" or un-American policies "un-American," but integrity and honest prevents me from pretending these things are anything other than what they really are. You yourself said a month ago that when people commit shameful acts, shame and humiliation is exactly the right response from those who know the right way to act. Though your continual attacks on freedom and the U.S. Constitution are worthy of great shame, I have tried to stick mostly with simply calling a spade a spade--which, when one is denouncing the foundational values and the highest law of one's own country, is shameful enough.

    It really shines the light on your dark designs when someone refuses to give you a pass for your reprehensible behavior. So you must run from it and belittle the light of truth at every opportunity.

    And yes, I do my best to consistently correct your error; I realize consistency is a bitter pill for liberals to follow, but the truth doesn't change, as much as you wish it would. As the wise Jewish rabbis recognized, repetition repetition repetition is a good teacher, especially for those slow or unwilling to learn. And when it comes to fighting against attacks on freedom and for the American way of life, I follow the wisdom of that great leader Winston Churchill: "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense."

    You are right about one thing, though: it isn't about me. It isn't about a politician or a "publicity stunt" either. It is about something you obviously have absolutely zero appreciation for: freedom. Freedom to run one's one life. Freedom to make decisions for one's self. Freedom from government oppression. The maintenance and preservation of the U.S. Constitution and its protections of our liberties. The every American way of life.

    How pathetic and sad for you that you despise all that makes America unique and great. How much better it would be for you and for Americans if you would simply go live in one of the socialist countries you are so in love with. Of course, on some level, even you understand that those places do not come close to measuring up to the United States...so you stick around and blindly try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    Why don't you try putting your country and your fellow Americans ahead of your myopic socialist agenda for a change? I guarantee it would be refreshing and fulfilling. :-) It would feel so liberating, you might even be compelled to consistently continue standing for those values.

  26. You are right about one thing, Barry: I am intolerant--intolerant of attacks on my freedom, my country, my Constitution, and my way of life. If my comments offend, it is because you are on the side of those promoting those attacks. You would no doubt be offended by many of the statements made by great men such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, for they do not mince words when it comes to threats to freedom.

    I realize you liberals got used to conservatives being quiet, trying to live and let live, trying to just get along, trying to think the best of you, giving the appearance of acquiescence to your destructive ideas. But we did that too long, thinking you might eventually come to your senses...and now we've realized you can't be reasoned with; you must simply be defeated.

    Why don't you try proving me wrong by showing you can respond to reason? Why not try being a little more tolerant of other people's freedom, their property rights, and our Constitution? Go ahead--give it a try! You might like it! :-)

  27. Joseph, don't care about your party affiliation, I just like your thought process and writing style.

    More than anything else, what we need are clear critical thinkers.

    Ellis starts with a set of faulty assumptions and follows them to their logical conclusion. No wonder he always ends up in the wrong place.

    It's not so much his reasoning, but rather his axioms that are out of whack.

    I do believe he is sincere, just hopelessly misinformed.

  28. Mr Ellis . the "we" that you speak for are definitely wee.

  29. Mr. Thompson, it is apparent that you are a deceiver, and were a deceiver from the beginning. What you claim you are and what you claim you support are irrelevant and a mockery when the evidence clearly indicates the opposite. Not only has every statement you have made revealed your deception about being sympathetic to the Tea Party movement, you obviously deceive about knowing "many Tea Party believers" because every one of them opposes the unconstitutional attacks on our freedom that you seem to champion. The only possibly way you know any Tea Party believes who fail to prize our liberty and Constitution would be if they are pretenders like yourself.

    I do hope you have learned something about me; I am an unashamed lover of America, our Constitution and the freedom for which our ancestors have fought and bled.

    And we have learned a lot about you, as well: you are clearly a liberal, an enemy of freedom, and unable to present yourself honestly.

    It has indeed been enlightening.

  30. Ah Mr Ellis,

    What you have learned about me is interesting.

    I am clearly a liberal. Thanks for favorably comparing me to our founding fathers, because they were all very liberal but no one who knows me would every call me a liberal as the term is used today. My own son calls me an anachronism and that boy was raised by me to be a staunch Republican and remains so today.

    You call me and those like me an enemy of freedom. I served this nation for over 20 years defending your right to say what you say. Those people that could not possibly be tea party supporters are all serving or retired military just like me.

    I do not present myself honestly. Every word I have said to you is the truth, it is who I am. It is how you interpret what I say that tells me who you are and how you think.

    I do believe that you believe what you say. I only ask that you do it intelligently, politely and with out name calling.

    Arguement loses its validity when not done intelligently, with thought and politeness. Name calling is merely a polite way of using a profanity and has no place in good, honest debate.

    I don't agree with the wackyness of either the progressive movement or the tea party movement in South Dakota. Until both movements lose this wackyness both will only be loud voices(because they scream so loud) and will have no impact on local, state or national elections in South Dakota. Believe it or not most South Dakotans see right thru the BS.

    I could list the things I have learned about you, some good some bad, but I will not do that because I have not looked you in the eye to know for sure what is vanity and what is belief. I do not know what you have done to improve or defend this great nation,words don't matter action does. Only when I am able to answer those questions will I know who you are, I don't jump to conclusions.

    Joseph G Thompson

    Joseph G Thompson

  31. I see you are no different than virtually every liberal I have ever encountered: incapable of truth.

    You know full well that the founders were not liberals like you. They were "liberals" in the classic sense, believing in freedom, self-determination, limited government, the free market, etc...you know, all the stuff that modern liberals like yourself despise.

    I do not "name call," as you put it. I accurately and clearly identify policies, philosophies, ideologies and those who promote them.

    Of course, liberals are almost always embarrassed to be caught dead while identified with the corrosive philosophy they espouse, so when someone correctly identifies you or your philosophy and has the audacity to actually say it, you whine "name calling, name calling!"

    Either get the right philosophy, or deal with it.

    By the way, as a 10-year veteran myself, I thank you for your past service to our country. I just wish you would continue serving it by respecting the U.S. Constitution and promoting American values instead of opposing them.

  32. Mr. Ellis,
    Of course I know the difference between liberalism of yesterday and today. That is why I said no one would discribe as a liberal as defined today.
    In all your posts here that is the first unargueable statement you have made. Congratulations.
    If you spent 10 years in uniform then you were taught the way to win arguements. Use those communications skills the military taught and you will have a better chance of getting people to listen to you.
    Would like to continue with this but it is impolite to dominate Cori's blog. My Email is f1768182@sio.midco.net, feel free

    Joseph G Thompson

  33. Mr. Thompson, thanks for the offer. I must decline, however. I don't have the time or inclination to converse further with someone who has such an incredibly hard time being honest about themselves and their beliefs. Thanks but no thanks.

  34. Don't get any on ya, Bob...

  35. Bob, Sergeant Thompson doesn't need me to defend his honor. But your flagrant lies about his character and beliefs is insulting.

    Unfortunately, Bob's politics are Gordon Howie's politics: polarize, demonize, ostracize, and keep saying exactly the same thing over and over. Political grandstanding—that's all Howie offers South Dakota. Having Howie as Governor would be a disaster.

    By the way:

    "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." —Saul Alinksy, Rules for Radicals, 1971.

    Funny how Ellis and Howie are the Alinskyites.

  36. [Larry: crude... but I was thinking the same thing. Ellis and Howie conjure the same fantasies, the same words, the same images every time, for seemingly no purpose than their own pleasure. The greatest offense in all this is Howie's constant stroking of his own ego.

  37. Mr. Thompson has himself revealed his inability to be honest. I did nothing but acknowledge that, and of course render the proper condemnation for it that any decent person interested in truth would. You yourself said recently when people commit shameful acts, they should be identified accordingly for such behavior. Mr. Thompson's misrepresentation of himself and of the values of the Tea Party movement were indeed shameful.

    Why don't you Leftists just try being open and honest about your corrosive beliefs. It would be so refreshing for us all, instead of advocating policies that are self-destructive and run counter to American values while claiming you love America soooooooooo much. Well, I think we know why: the more people see through your pale protests of loving America (while you work to tear it down and remake it into a socialist utopia), the less power your sick ideas have. You desperately need people to remain asleep to your designs. I understand that.

    By the way, I don't follow the radical Leftist Alynsky at all; I simply call it like it is (I know that's extremely uncomfortable for someone whose conscience tells them deep down that they're wrong). But since you think I do, isn't it interesting that you would try to fault me for something dreamed up and practices by your allies for so long? Hypocritical? Hmmm.

  38. Mr. Ellis;


  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

  40. Guys, seriously. What else would you expect from a man who believes with all his heart, mind and soul that the universe is only 6,000 (or so) years old?

    You have to start with his hopelessly neurotic understanding of reality and take it from there.

    His worldview begins and ends in fantasyland.

    But within those parameters, his logic is air tight.

    If nothing else, that's the mark of a good storyteller.

    Nevermind that when Bob looks at the stars, he's seeing light that is eons older than it could possibly be under his mental construct, or that the computer he's using couldn't possibly have even been conceived by someone who thinks the way he does. In Bob's mind, he has a good reason for all of it.

    If you want to have some real fun, check him out on that level sometime. You know... reality?

    Yeah, that level.

  41. Newt Gingrich on the radio...how much worse can it get? Michelle Bachmann on the radio! OMG!

    It's been two weeks since I've slept with my odd goddess. Next week, Beautiful Woman, I promise!

  42. Hey Bill, that's Gordon Howie's worldview too, right?

  43. Don't know for sure about Gordon, Cory.

    He doesn't publish on the topic as far as I know. Maybe we should ask him sometime. Seems like I did once, but honestly, I can't remember his answer.

    My guess is, bottom line, Gordon is a little more down to earth than Bob is. I say that because I notice he and I can at least stand to carry a conversation with each other without him breathing fire, brimstone, hell and tarnation down on me.

    And (and this is very, very important) Gordon has an excellent sense of humor, even to the point of being able to laugh at himself when he screws up.

  44. Bill, one indication of how shamefully bereft you are of meritorious ideas is that you feel you must resort to trying to discredit me with your unscientific prattle.

    It's interesting that you can look at a computer and realize it was intelligently designed, yet you think your own mind is the product of random chance. Now I'll admit that your feeble attempts at logic could lend some credibility to that notion, but that's really more a problem of "garbage in, garbage out" rather than the design of the machine.

    I realize that my worldview is difficult for someone to grasp when they've spent many years investing themselves mentally and emotionally in an inconsistent, unworkable theory at serves only to absolve them of moral accountability (in their own mind, anyway). At the very minimum, my worldview is at least logical and consistent within its own framework, while yours is completley unworkable under your very own tenets. Only a fool would follow a philosophy that is impossible under its own assumptions.

    Of course, all this inane whining about reality comes from someone who claims to have read the U.S. Constitution and knows what's in there, yet claims he cannot see that our federal government has been clearly stepping far over its boundaries for years.

    Such a person is either amazingly stupid, a brazen liar, or owns tremendous real estate in the fantasyland of his own artificial "reality."

  45. My dad isn't here yet: http://www.airforcechiefs.org/FallenChiefs.html

    After Dad goes, Mr. Ellis, I'm going to rip you a new one...get ready

  46. Bob, I DON'T think my mind is the product of random chance. But I think yours might be. ;^)

  47. Bob, you'll find, if you care to get to know me better, that I am not, in fact, an atheist. Nor am I agnostic. The difference between us, theologically speaking, is almost certainly not what you think it is. We really should compare notes sometime. But first, you may have to get the chip off your shoulder, and open your mind a little. Otherwise, we would both be wasting our time.

  48. So you believe in God; you just believe he was kidding about all that stuff he said in the Bible, or perhaps lying about it?

    He's pretty powerful and pretty holy. I don't think I'd want to face him someday and only be able to tell him, "I didn't think you meant all that stuff."

  49. So, when did God write the Bible again? Was that before or after the Paleolithic Era, Bob?


  50. Aren't we straying a bit too far afield from the subject? Maybe if Cory can chime in labeling the Tea Party all red-neck creationists and characterize Gordon Howie's attempts at rejecting the health care bill as a fundamentalist's denial of modern medicine. That way he can bring the conversation back around to the original topic: Gordon Howie is a loser and should just give up.

    Personally I like a voice crying in the wilderness. Screw all the pharisee's anyway.

    There is also a very important reason to add a nullification bill to the fight against the health insurance seizure. Even if all the other reasons for it were the same as in the lawsuit, it adds a direct challenge to the ability of the federal government to overrule a state by the abusive use of the interstate commerce clause. It makes it more difficult to ignore state rights by turning to the precedence of Medicare.

  51. Larry: evolution is good science, but hardly complete. I've yet to hear cogent explanation of how conditions caused organic soup to organize into a single-cell structure, let alone make the leap replicate itself as a multi-cell organism instead of continuing to compete against each other as independent cells.

  52. Bob, you're facing him right now. There is no "someday." This is it, brother. Right now. It's all there is. All there ever was, all there ever will be.

  53. Roger, it doesn't make any sense to expect evolution to be "complete." That's a contradiction in terms.

  54. Roger and Bob, You guys are so caught up in looking for something to believe in, you're missing the whole point.

  55. Roger, I agree that we have strayed from the original topic. The main point was that Howie's campaign serves only to stoke his publicity and stroke his ego. The conversation has turned to stroking Bob's ego.

    Roger, I disagree that the petition drive adds anything new to the states' rights fight. It's not a new weapon; the initiative simply would have forced a replay of the exact same court battle AG Jackley is waging. It would have produced exactly the same results (which smart money says will be a judge saying states can't nullify federal law). Gordon Howie would do much better to rally all that apparent public political energy into a different crusade that would make a practical difference beyond giving him headlines.

  56. Ellis outlines the main "strategies" for repeal of the HCR bill above, and in the process, reveals the fundamental flaws in his reasoning. It's surprising how he can be somewhat accurate on the one hand and so wrong on the other.

    He assumes correctly that the lawsuits are mostly (if not completely) a states rights issue, but incorrectly as to why the states will lose. Hint: it won't be because of "activist judges." It will be for lack of standing as well as constitutional issues involving the individual rights of the states citizens.

    He should by now be familiar with this having fought the battle many times before on other fronts. "No madam, you may not have an abortion even though you have been raped by your father and childbirth will most likely kill you." Now becomes, "No madam, you and your children may not have health care insurance because you have preexisting conditions. Besides, you are poor, and our governor and our attorney general don't think your fellow citizens should have to help you pay for it." You can work out your own opinions about the morality of all that.

    Likewise with this petition he's circulating, but a different venue with a focus on persuading individuals to go along with it, mostly because he knows the states have no standing (i.e. the states are not being "harmed.") Some definition of "harm" huh?

  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

  58. p.s. Cory, (an aside...sorry) don't you love the irony of Bob calling SB137 insurance (in so many words... i.e. "an additional line of defense.")

  59. Bill and Cory both have faith in the courts continuing to base all their decisions on precedence rather than constitutional law. They may be correct in how the court may decide, but since there is no interstate commerce in health insurance products, there is no constitutional authority for the federal govt to regulate it. The fact that there are many previous decisions that ignore the lack of federal authority in numerous ways only makes it more likely for them to continue to ignore it. The court cannot create authority simply by insisting it is there repeatedly.
    This court case will likely be either a turning point in growing federal power or a turning point marking a division and animosity grown past the point of no return.

    More specifically, Bill: "No madam, you..."
    This is equivalent to me taking your checkbook and using your money in the best way possible that helps you and the people you care about. I have a good financial mind, I'm sure I could do a reasonable job of it. The fact that I don't have the authority shouldn't be a problem right? Since you have no problem ceding all state power as irrelevant.
    As far as your analogies go: "Madam, your own rights do not nullify the rights of other people, including your own children"
    "Madam, we are not responsible for making you live forever, we just sell insurance"

  60. Hang on, Roger: so if Congress does another round of reform and passes the GOP plan to let people buy insurance across state lines, then it's totally game on for federal regulation, right?

  61. Cory: YES, there would have been more grounds had that been put in. However, I do think that such regulation should not be a zero/sum analysis. Interstate commerce should be regulated by the federal govt only enough to mitigate any trouble for the region, not used as an allowance for total regulation of an industry. This has been a long-standing abuse. In short though the answer is yes.

  62. I'll argue here that the end user "product" is not "Health Insurance" but rather "Health Care" and that delivery of same (commerce) does indeed occur across state lines on a routine basis.

    This is one of the problems with this whole debate... and with the Health Care system in general — the divorcing of the marriage between "insurance" and "delivery of services."

  63. Bill: And you would be wrong to do so. Health care services and health care insurance are completely distinct things. We could erase insurance from existence, publicly supplied or otherwise, and the provision of health care continues.

    By forcing the 'marriage' of the two things you also force together people's needs for health care and their needs for the resources necessary to pay for those services and thereby imply the federal government has a constitutional right to regulate all resources. First: people's needs do not create a claim on society. Second: Bob is right, you are a socialist/progressive who lacks respect for the original intent of the constitution.

    And Gordon Howie does, even if the effort is futile it is mandatory to make the effort if you have a moral spine

  64. On the contrary Roger, I am a scholar who understands the Constitution as opposed to a strict constructionist, literalist reactionary who can't make heads not tails of it.

    And I am emphatically not interested in your feeble attempts at shaming with with your hollow, trumped up, irrational, convoluted, pompous, self-righteous "moral" value judgements of me.

    So, if you would, please, fold those five ways and file them where the sun don't shine.

  65. Roger suggests that insurance companies aren't conduits to the delivery of health care services. Is anyone else as entertained by the ridiculous irony of that idea as I am?


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.