Fiscally he appears to be a Libertarian, socially he resembles a conservative Republican. I am not sure he has anything in common with Democrats. Maybe he will become more moderate as he travels around the state meeting people? He has some radical positions that might make sense in a better economy. He is not a politician. He is not a policy wonk. He is not crazy like Palin. I do not like any of his positions (I consider myself a liberal pragmatist), but he might be a good candidate for North Dakota. Reply...

I fing it interesting and revealing that there are people posting on this forum who claim to be conservatives, yet have no idea who Paul Sorum is , or even what party he belongs to. Reply...

Fair enough.  I only vote for conservatives.  He is a conservative.  I was trying to make the point that his message is appealing to a lot of moderate democrats, especially those that are businessmen and those that are worried about out of control spending. Reply...

Republican,  Moderate republican?  liberal republican? mushy middle republican?  conservative republican?

Chose one.    If he makes dems too happy, I do have to worry about how republican he is.

As you see I don't think much of bipartisianship.

Reply...

Well he is a registered Republican but one of the few I have seen that can appeal to everyone.  He's a conservative but I know a lot of Democrats are attracted to his message because he understands what its like to work hard for a paycheck, pay good money for groceries and gas, and to actually balance a check book. I'm excited for the first time in a long while.  I am going to send him a 20 this week. Reply...

I know you say you didn't get into rep or dem,  lib or conservative, but it is real real important.  

So, which one is it?

Reply...

Words are our business in the North Dakota Senate. The language in the bill about the MRCC doesn't say "consider" as the story above reports. That is only practical effect of the intent language, because the 61st Session cannot direct the 62nd to do much of anything, but the language is much worse and caused me to point out that while I supported the bill to repair the prison, it is not my intent to "provide funding from the general fund for relocation of the Missouri River correctional center to the state penitentiary site."

The MRCC facility, aka the "state farm," was renovated in 1993. It serves a useful purpose and preserves just under a thousand acres of public land on the Missouri River. It is the site of Whiskey Point, a scandalous place visited often by Custer's soldiers across the river. It is currently underutilized by the public and by the state as well. Shore fishing, community gardens, wildlife and nature studies, a boat landing, state park ... there is no lack of ideas for public use of these precious acres. But in order to implement any of them, the public has to continue to own it. Reply...

One more quick comment. This is a gross waste of 6 million bucks as the New grandstand that was defeated 2 years ago was only 9 million. IF it did not pass when it was 9 million why would anyone think of it passing when it is 15 million bucks. You know I could go on forever on this issue, just bcause I would like to see ND advance into the future for us and our kids/grandkids. This is actually putting the brakes o ND growth, and that is only my opinion. Du Reply...

Since I have conflicting reports on SB 2009 I do not know what is correct. In emails just recieved from House members I have been told that this amendment was rejected by the House today. In another email I was told that it was raised to 15 million bucks from the 5 million it was reduced to yesterday.. Reply...

You're kidding, right?

This part of your "story", is in NO WAY correct: "Also at the Legislature today, The Senate voted 25-17 in favor of ending the use of the Fighting Sioux as UND's nickname."

This was NOT the North Dakota Senate. It was the University Senate at the University of North Dakota. HUGE difference.

There were also 14 members of the University Senate that abstained, including President Kelley of UND. Way to take a stand!

This resolution was introduced, anonymously, by the way, in order to fend off the backlash that Fighting Sioux nickname opponents are going to receive when the Spirit Lake Nation votes on the issue at a referendum later this month. The vote will most likely pass, and nickname opponents are petrified of that fact. It will expose their position on the issue for what it really is. NOTHING!

Is there someone there that researches items before they are posted as "news"? Reply...

I am very concerned that religious dogma and media collusion have undermined responsible Governance in the State of North Dakota. The current challenge to federal law takes the concept of immaculate conception, along with intelligent design, and divine retribution to new levels of hypocricy. Why else would the "only" voice of reason be required to defend "her" job performance.
It is so patently obvious that this law is all about the controll and disenfranchisemsment of poor women and their unborn children,
Unborn Children whose interests they purport to defend and who they will denounce as bastards and a drain on the taxpayers once they are born. More importantly the mothers they have forced into indentured sevtitude [in violation of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment's equal protection and due process clauses] denies her the right to her own self determination and to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Forcing an unwanted child on a woman takes
her most fundamental libertys away by saddeling her with 18 years of unending responsibility and hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. Not to mention the approbation of the community and her family should she fail to comply with this hideous parody of so called "justice". However, useing poor Mother's as scapegoats is so easy in a state full of Christians who believe in the right to life of the unborn in detriment to all of the living. The "irresponsible Mothers" find themselves "solely responsible" for the predicament they are in simply by living in a self righteous, unenlightened, compassionless, gender biased State. The whole point was to scape goat her for the economic problems that besets a state when greed & corruption, meet & Church and State conspire to reap unethical profits and entaglements in violation of "The Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. God forbid these churches and their leaders should have their tax sheild immunity be rescinded even if the price for all this meddeling in politics is "by law" supposed to be denial of tax immunity."
The inability to admit and act upon the undisputed fact that it takes two to get pregnant
goes to the very heart of the underlying mysoginy in this law.
It's not about responsibility for what you have forced upon innocent citizens such as these children and the further victimization
of these women who may have been raped or who were defrauded by the men who impregneted them and later deny any responsibility for their offspring or their actions. Today the Congress of the State of North Dakota seeks to prosecute the "victim" for giving her heart and her trust to a scoundrel.
What if anything will you do with these Father's who you have also forced into unplanned and unwanted parenthood. Probably not much since you promote insurance coverage of viagra and all forms of impotence which further engenders masculine irresponsibility to everything except his own selfish gratification, while denying women the inherent right to coverage of even basic Family Planning! Therefore, especially poor women are discriminated against then blamed because the didn't lock their legs!!! It is absolutely hideous to hear that attitude in this country and in this century from a citizen who says they speak for Jesus
in the most base and misoginistic way. The one thing that seems to keep women from outright rebellion is the con job of Prince Charming and true love and a twisted vindictive veiw of religion that undermines the will to resist through coersion and terror alerts which keeps reminding them that hell awaits women who get angry.
I'd like to know which hell you mean this one or some other one.
I just want all of you pro-life men in your South Dakota state congress who have daughters, to think about a reasonable explanation for attempting to high jack their future, or the future of your sister, or your wife, or your girlfriend or your Mother.
Even while trying to deny a man's greater responsibility because of his physical strength, his sexual drive , and his enhanced cultural and social positon, simply by virtue of his gender. The only way for the male gender to justify this ongoing inequality, which in the 20th century still treats women as virtual slaves with the miniscule award for their collective toil of less then 1% of the world's asetts, is to apply the archaic concept of "divine right". This Patriarchical and insultingly harmful concept is fully promoted by the religious right and the overwhelmingly biased press. The congress, who will likely owe their jobs to the payment of illegally witheld tax dollars converted to campaign fund contributions are all to ready to endorse and enforce this abomination. . To ask for the kind of Justice thus proposed is an anethma to every Democratic value of fairness, Equal Protection, Justice and the Concept of ordered Liberty embodied in our Constitution. I hope your Senate will come to it's senses before
it becomes a real and fundamental challenge to the rest of us who oppose this insufferable attempt to ruin the lives of women and children because they don't fit in to your narrow, unjust, and un realistic veiw of the world. Your attitude of of moral and fiscal irresponsibility for that which you seek and promote makes it that much more repugnant. It's not because those of us who oppose you do not understand and cherish life, on the contrary! It's because we [do] cherish life, that we don't take it lightly, or treat it like a mistake so that we can use it as leverage to motivate the lowest common denominator. We understand that living creatures require nurturing, great selflessness, shared responsibility, & unconditional love. Without those trade offs there cant' be a life that is honored or cherished or many times, even worth living.
Are the taxpayers of the state of North Dakota ready to be saddled with children who are much more likely to become wards of the state in Foster care as children, Incarcerated as adults and put to death by a State that is supposed to hold life sacred but does not oppose the death penalty. I doub't very much that the social misfits sitting on death row absent a valid case of true insanity
were children who were wanted by either of their parents.
Finally, I believe the only way to protect an unborn child is to provide them with the absolute and inalienable right not to be born into a unwelcome world where their parents are unable to care for them or welcome them, cherish them or nurture them with all the love and understanding and basic necessities that they deserve.
In this case, promoted by the religious right they would rather use a hypothetical life to further unethical goals because their hypothetical responsibility for that life either before or after birth is nonexistent.
D. Hood
Reply...

What's this? You let zygotes vote now? Sheesh, I'm staying out of North Dakota. Reply...

There are three voices in an abortion; mother's, father's child's.
A father hasa moral and civil right to say no to an abortion.
John DiBiase
central Connecticut Divorce Education Center Reply...

Crystal116 here are some FACTS as provided from Planned Parenthood (a pro abortion Lobbyist group):

UNITED STATES

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Who's having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Who's having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Who's having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.

Now Crystal116 let's put two and two together, follow me if you can...93% of 3,700 abortions a day =3,441 babies murdered a day for convienence...Sleep well crystal116. Reply...

Thank you crystal116 for proving my original point... Reply...

Wow, are all of the people in this Senate 60 year old men? They're definately the best people to decide on the rights of women, right? This is disgusting. I'm beyond glad that I live in a progressive state, and I hope this nightmare doesn't start spreading. Reply...

Hey scottp55 first of yes a 8 or 9 year old can get pregnant, i was 8 when i start my period and i got pregnant at 9. i was rapped and i chose to have an abortion ...and yes my sister was in danger of dying if she didnt get an abortion because she had cancer ... so dont tell me i dont know what i am talking about.. YOU WILL NEVER BE IN THAT POSITON TO DECIDE THAT... IT IS ONE THE HARDEST THINGS SOMEONE WILL EVER HAVE TO DO.... AND FOR ONE MY MOM HAD AN ABORTION AT 16 BECAUSE SHE WAS RAPPED BY HER OWN BROTHER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO DONT TELL ME .... AGAIN.. WERE YOU EVER RAPPED ????????????? WAS ANYONE YOU KNOW RAPPED OVER AND OVER AGAIN ??????????? so before you sit there on your high horse speak out your ass... get your facts straight and yes a baby in the mothers womb is not considered anything until it is born... you cant claim it on your taxes can you ? NO, you cant do anything until it is born... and getting an abortion is NOT MURDER for one... if it was it wouldnt have became legal... you guys really disgust me ...and as for the whole God thing what about the death pentaly that is us playing god..taking people lives for them taking other peoples..so wouldnt that be considered MURDER to..since we are killing a person... hmm what a thought... Also what the immragants that come here they dont pay taxes and they go on welfare too it is not just people who have a ton of kids and cant afford them... And because our encomny has gotten so bad what about the people who are going on assistance to help pay their bills etc... and THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT TRASH... most of them are people who have lost their jobs and have never been on it before ...so dont blame on people who have babies for the hell of it... again GET THE FACTS BEFORE YOU SPEAK.... Reply...

I keep reading people saying women should shut their legs.
The opening of the legs isn't the problem, babies don't just happen like magic, there are penises involved - maybe some men who are the producers of sperm, the 23 chromosomes of the 46 needed to create a human life, could perhaps take some responsibility as well? Teach men how to use contraception, as well as a woman. Reply...

in that case that zygote needs to get out there get a job and start paying rent...about a sensible argument as others above...a zygote/fetus is not a living being...it has no life of its own...without the mother there is no life...tying this all up is spirituality is the dirtiest trick in the book...and where in the bible was the biology lesson about all the zygotes that jesus loves and protects...how about a little reason... Reply...

I am a man and I say, if men got pregnant we wouldn't even be HAVING this discussion. But since its the "woman's responsibility" as men, we can have the fun and then just walk away. So, if the women need to take the responsibility (and they bear the brunt of pregnancy) lets let only women vote on this issue.

And I still say it violates the US 13th amendment: involuntary servitude. If that little clump of cells "is a person" then they need to be paying rent, food costs, taxes, etc or Mom gets to evict. Reply...