Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Creating its own monopoly

March 23, 2013

Somewhere along the line, the idea behind the Western Area Water Supply Authority has changed, and certainly not for the better....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(20)

locomotive

Mar-26-13 6:10 PM

"As to the others, you are much better looking than Colter/Malkin."

centerish, you'll turn my head (towards the center) with flattery like that.

Hee hee hee

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-26-13 5:49 PM

Me: "I don't dispute that it is a Republican controlled legislature."

Veritas: "So, I support your technical clarification of ND having a Republican controlled legislature."

Why is there still a problem, centerish?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Mar-26-13 4:01 PM

Now, you took one sentence of what Veritas printed and skewed the conversation away from the topic of his blog and the conversation. Similar to Rush, you run in different directions when backed into a corner.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Mar-26-13 4:00 PM

Rush is one of your leaders. You know the family values king. The guy who is now divorced four times. The guy who speaks for the Conservatives. The guy who only uses part of the facts and very little of that. The Republican congress is afraid of him and basically follows his direction. As to the others, you are much better looking than Colter/Malkin.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-26-13 11:24 AM

And here I thought you were my biggest fan, billgrr. Not. Ever.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-26-13 9:43 AM

Veritas, I did warn billdoesnt about one of his posts, saying that if I didn't do it, billgrr most certainly would.

So I figure my warning + billgrr's words + others' words = a big enough watchdog force already.

You're welcome to weigh in more than you do. Then maybe I could opt out, as being a watchdog hasn't done much so far in my gaining more acceptability with the MDN's lefties.

:-)

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-26-13 6:34 AM

The editorial's last words: "The state should not be in the practice of helping create monopolies for itself. The Senate should be ashamed."

PL: "The REPUBLICAN Senate should be ashamed."

Veritas: "It is a REPUBLICAN Senate."

centerish: "Veritas stated that it is a republican controlled legislature (which it is)."

I don't dispute that it is a Republican controlled legislature. What I disputed is what PL & Veritas actually stated. Sorry it wasn't clear enough for some.

Rush Limbaugh? Why not Ann Coulter? Or Michelle Malkin? Or Star Parker? Or Katie Pavlich? Why the fixation on Limbaugh? He's just another male conservative...

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Mar-26-13 3:19 AM

Loco, are you sure you are not Rush Limbaugh's twin. You cannot even debate rationally. The only person insisting that they (democrats) do not exist is you. Veritas stated that it is a republican controlled legislature (which it is). Now, with a 33-14 super majority, the only bills that are passing are Republican. Are you sure you are not Limbaugh's cousin?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Mar-25-13 6:23 PM

And the moral of the story is The state of North Dakota is red and it is Republican and we can thank all the Republican Voters in North Dakota for keeping it that way.

The liberals can take a hike.. They are out numbered and so are their days in office..

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-25-13 2:24 PM

So, by lib logic, the US House of Representatives is now ONLY Republican, because of the present majority. And the US Senate is ONLY Democrat, because of the present majority. Too simplistic.

All the members of the minority parties do, in fact, exist, and have even elected leaders for themselves. And they testify for or against bills. And they vote. And they (ideally) report to their constituents.

But again, according to lib logic, those minority members do not exist.

I realize I'm now majoring on a minor, because the libs have refused to engage my point. OK, I won't waste any more time on this, but the libs are still wrong.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Mar-25-13 10:26 AM

Loco, 71 Republicans, 23 Democrats- In the ND House of Representatives. Veritas and PL are correct.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Mar-25-13 10:16 AM

Let me see, loco. ND Senate is comprised of 33 Republicans and 14 democrats. Yep, I would say that veritas and PL are correct.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-24-13 8:09 PM

"quote" for the spelling gurus

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-24-13 8:09 PM

So I looked up the bill referred to in this editorial, SB 2359.

The original Senate sponsors: Sen. Burckhard (R), Sen. Luick (R) and Sen. Triplett (D).

But PL and Veritas have both asserted that the ND Senate is (I qoute) a REPUBLICAN Senate. How could it possibly be that Sen. Triplett is a Democrat AND a co-sponsor of this bill?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-24-13 8:00 PM

demnpl . com/resources/north-dakota-legislative-districts/

"Of the 47 Senators, the North Dakota Democratic-NPL has 15 Senators"

Veritas, just because the Reps have a majority in the ND Senate does not negate the existence of the 15 Dem Senators. Would you care to tell them that they are not members of the ND Senate? And that their votes duly cast have somehow vanished into thin air?

Your "game of association" has disassociated itself. It reminded me of games out on the playground.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

justsomeone

Mar-24-13 8:51 AM

Marvin- I understand your argument, but it hardly justifies government restrictions on free market. What if the commodity were cattle instead of water? What if selling nails would be a great way to fund a project? Should hardware stores within 10 miles be restricted? Just because an answer is easy doesn't mean it's right.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-23-13 4:16 PM

When PL can prove that no Democrats are in the ND Senate, then it can be said that the ND Senate is entirely Republican.

Until then, it's hyperbole.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marvin51

Mar-23-13 9:30 AM

SB 2359 is the bill to reign in WAWS. The territory restriction is a compromise. As it stands, WAWS has been turning to 1926(b) to prevent all growth of private water.

The WAWS plan wasn't really sell some oil water to help pay for the project, it was to pay 80% of the project with such sales. It's a dream that has a lot of potential nightmares. If private depots open up next to the WAWS depots and sell untreated water next to the treated water, the privates can undercut the cost of the treated water so WAWS goes broke. Not saying the bill isn't going to change some yet, but the legislature is trying to protect a $200 million dollar investment while not stopping private water sales the 10 mile radius is a compromise.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Mar-23-13 8:23 AM

Yeah when the government is supposed to protect us from monopolies its makes it pretty easy to be a monopoly.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProgressiveLiberal

Mar-23-13 2:16 AM

The REPUBLICAN Senate should be ashamed.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 20 of 20 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web