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

Taking away our rights

September 29, 2013

Steven Barron, Minot My wife and I relocated from Washington State and have been trying to get established in our new community....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(50)

Legend

Oct-09-13 9:58 PM

rumor is the koch's are on hiatus and the tp can't pp w/o pt. minions and sycophants extraordinaire. committee formed in minot to convince us to spend $700 per year per homeowner for years to pay for oil caused school needs. vote no and let oil tax pay bills from oil.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-09-13 9:42 PM

if you want to find who is behind the shutdown, ask who is not bothered by it. koch's and other rich oil ty*****, adelson. their kind objected to things like national parks--why would they care if the parks close?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-08-13 9:23 AM

save your thoughts on spending. we can't get our city/county to stop MADC or lower our taxes but we can vote. they are not jumping to fix the dirty water which is probably broken lines. my water smells like a bleach bottle--instead they bleach the snot out of it; bleach is not good for humans. my guess--they have things they want to spend on instead of our water pipes. Event Center, Bubble, Schools--vote no. we need schools but only because of oil--vote no and the state will rightly have to pay for the schools. vote no and stop the pet projects.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-07-13 11:22 PM

the article talks about slaves. i have been a slave to oil since 73 and since the bakken in the thousands of dollars per year. i have been a slave to medical care for 13 years. if the fed solves our medical mess; i will be partially free. if they fix the control oil has on me; i will be mostly free. it is not the fed who stopped my hunting/camping trips to the badlands--they actually kept the grasslands as a public place. it is oil traffic that stopped my trips out west.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Oct-06-13 7:57 PM

Whistler---Ever hear of the 'tax expenditure'? Look it up and learn something new. In other words tax breaks for business, but not for people is OK by you right? All this libs are mooches is a load of cr@p.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Oct-06-13 7:50 PM

Whistler---Your thinking on liberals and work...blow it out your.....

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-05-13 9:51 PM

ACA is because the majority of us cannot earn enough money to pay all medical costs until we die. it is about wages being too low and medical costs too high. Whistler: what you say is a nice thought but is impossible for but a few in our society. read about the years b4 and during T. Roosevelt and how capitalism must have controls or capitalists will take total control. kinda like this oil bus. and "progress" in ND. when is enough, enough? why is MADC inviting more bus. when we can't handle what we have. how high can our taxes go to support this progress? greed has no limit and we all witness it now.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Missy1

Oct-05-13 9:11 PM

Since Obama has given me and option to keep my own insurance and doctor. That's what I am doing.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-04-13 10:58 PM

bitterness and anger well describes rush, fox talk and most of the t party. think about it.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-03-13 12:57 PM

Hey loco: real reds are attempting to overtake the t party as we watch. i vote for the real reds. i expect the t's to fail within 48 hrs.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-03-13 12:52 PM

A69:good question. you don't know bcause reds won't tell very well. Clinton said the U.S. military is overseas to protect U.S. business interests. i agree with that. kind of a security force for overseas bus. or corp. welfare. it is much easier for war mongers like B1 and B2 to get into conflicts when the mil. is large.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Oct-03-13 9:21 AM

angeR, to some blues, more spending by our government equals more "rights" for them. Back in the day, it was called "bringing home the bacon" or "pork barrel spending." Now it's virtuous or something...

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Oct-03-13 12:44 AM

Legend, as I suspected might happen, you completely missed the point. It's not all about the spending.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Oct-03-13 12:34 AM

"My question is why do reds refuse any cuts to defense?"

So now we're just referred to as the "reds"? Kind of ironic, don't ya think?

The fact is defense is only 20 percent of the federal budget. It should be 80 percent, and that's not to say we need to quadruple our defense budget. It means that most of what comprises today's federal budget doesn't belong there.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-02-13 3:34 PM

bdngi: did you miss the wisconsin (staged)phone call where walker exposed the string of radical red governors ties to the koch bros--and their state by state scheme to crush coll. bargaining. The k bros union is the U.S. chamber of commerce--it is ok for them to have a union but not 4 labor. and that is why gas is the same price from maj. brands in most any city. a comparison would be if a plumber cost $150 per hour everywhere and no one else could plumb (because individuals can't make their own gas.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-02-13 3:24 PM

hope u r watching the fight. ACA is the law yet reds want to neg. the budget against it. thats nuts. remember dems ever doing that--i don't. reds spending position is cuts to everything but defense. dems have allowed cuts to everything but ACA probably because it is new. My question is why do reds refuse any cuts to defense? are they all war mongers like McCain? I am very familiar with mil spending and believe me cuts there would hurt much less than most other places. i earned wages 4 a living--3 reasons i lean left. always said i would rather have a job and pay taxes than have no job.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-02-13 3:24 PM

hope u r watching the fight. ACA is the law yet reds want to neg. the budget against it. thats nuts. remember dems ever doing that--i don't. reds spending position is cuts to everything but defense. dems have allowed cuts to everything but ACA probably because it is new. My question is why do reds refuse any cuts to defense? are they all war mongers like McCain? I am very familiar with mil spending and believe me cuts there would hurt much less than most other places. i earned wages 4 a living--3 reasons i lean left. always said i would rather have a job and pay taxes than have no job.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-02-13 3:13 PM

angR69: Your big govt. statement means "tax and spend liberals". Search pres's and spending to find it is not true. Reagan and B2 broke spending levels of their time. neither inherited a crash like 2008 which automatically kicks in more unemp., food S., and other Gov't aid. Obama will take the hit for B2's wars and econ. collapse. The working class , except for organized labor does not lobby congress to their stuff favored. Big money does. it is reported pharma has 5 lobbyists for each sen/rep. just one example.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Oct-02-13 2:59 PM

angeR, I agree with your expanded points. Wish I had said them.

:-)

DustOff, I liked your posts too, especially about Apple.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Oct-02-13 2:31 PM

Legend, I can say that 52.0% of people disapprove of Obamacare according to an average of seven polls (investors . com), but I don't know where your percentage comes from, nor could I find it doing a cursory google search.

Oh well. If it's just an opinion, who cares?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Oct-02-13 2:11 PM

Veritas, I couldn't even begin to tell of all your "rumor thingies" that you dress up to appear as facts. I remember something about a party you went to, you polled the attendees, and then "cited" your results. Sure...

I heard, via real people telling their stories, that certain BC/BS policy holders received a letter telling them that their premium rates were going up. Substantially. In spite of high deductibles.

Now that I've said it, it's hearsay. But it's compelling hearsay, that's the difference.

:-)

So who's going to benefit from that? Insurance companies? Government? Not quite sure that the policy holders will be "benefitting" much, if they like their present insurance and want to keep it.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Oct-02-13 2:21 AM

When government expands, liberty is diminished.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Oct-02-13 2:15 AM

Corporations are frequently demonized, especially by the left, because they often have accesses to immense wealth and resources. Some are accused, and rightly so, of buying influence among elected officials in our government bodies. Nobody can deny that this happens. The fallacy of the left is that these corporations have too much money, and that they use that money to buy favors from corrupt politicians who then enact laws that step on "the little guy." Therefore we must use the power of government to place limitations on wealth and the ease of its acquisition. It's not fair that some people have so much and others so little. It's not fair that the wealthy can buy power in government. You'll never hear from the left that limitations should be placed on government. That would be utter sacrilege in the leftist religion. Government must constantly expand! That is the very definition of progress on the left.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Oct-02-13 2:14 AM

By itself, a corporation has no power to take anything away from you. You are free to engage, or not to engage in business with a corporation as you see fit. Government, on the other hand, is always based on the threat of the use of force. This is not to say that we don't need government. We certainly do not want anarchy. What we do want is a safe, predictable environment in which to live and conduct our daily business. This kind of civil environment can only be established by a governing body (or bodies) that assumes authority, sets the rules by which we all must live, and enforces those rules. No matter how benevelently government is set up, it's authority is ALWAYS backed up by the use of force.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Oct-02-13 2:13 AM

"It is naive for citizens to believe that their federal gov't can do no ill and has only their best interests at heart. Governments are made up of people, similar to corporations. Human beings are fallible."

Great, point Loco. I hope you don't mind if I expand upon it a little.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 50 comments Show More 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