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

Proud to live in North Dakota

August 11, 2013

Jerome Behm, Burlington I am writing to comment on the letter written by Don Feller which appeared in the Sunday, July 28, 2013, issue of The Minot Daily New....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(33)

namexxx

Aug-17-13 1:22 PM

Who is "Ben Ladin"?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-17-13 9:17 AM

Rugby, I don't watch Fox News nor do I "fear" sharia law.

I am telling the facts if sharia law came to our shores in full force.

"...it's not happening nor is it going to happen..."

Do you think US citizens would somehow be exempt from sharia precepts if Muslims became a voting majority in this country?

33 mosques in Detroit area alone.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-17-13 7:18 AM

DustOff, I currently do not wear a burka, but if sharia law gets to be the law of our land, that's what I'll have to wear. Plus, education for women is not necessarily promoted in Islamic countries. And, all those rabid cries for a woman's right to choose (abortion)? Let's see how well that goes under sharia law. What women's rights?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-16-13 8:33 PM

Here's one source for Whistler's post...

washingtontimes . com/news/2013/aug/15/ampac-plans-million-muslim-march-dc-911/

AMPAC’s Chief of Operations Isa Hodge writes that Muslims and non-Muslims alike were traumatized by the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, “but we as Muslims continue 12 years later to be victimized by being made the villains.”

“Yet our Government either sits idly by and does nothing to protect our freedoms or it exacerbates the problem with its constant war on terrorism in Islamic countries, congressional hearings on Islam in America, and its changes to the NDAA law.”

“These lies told to the American population has made it impossible for us to do true Dawa,” Ms. Hodge continues, referring to the practice of proselytizing or preaching Islam.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-16-13 6:42 PM

Such vitriol, namexxx.

Who in the world is the "lying sack" you'd like to punch?

It's not clear in your post...

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-16-13 5:53 PM

Whistler, I believe it's still legal to disagree with a president's policies. No one has swooped in recently and said that the freedom of thought or speech has been rescinded, especially here on MDN. Perhaps if you stick around a while, the president's supporters will provide all the answers to your questions about his accomplishments.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Aug-15-13 10:27 AM

Garr, I think you forgot one: White liberal race-baiters. Dusty, don't give him what he wants.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Aug-15-13 1:03 AM

I'll take it from these most recent postings that any rational or intelligent discussion on the topic has ended.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Aug-15-13 1:01 AM

Hey WillGarr,

I'm a little curious. What exactly qualifies as a black or minority problem?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Aug-15-13 12:42 AM

Namex, thanks for the trip down memory lane. I must admit, I'm a little disappointed that you haven't plastered it all over the site as per your usual, but I suppose I should be grateful that you were thinking of me at all.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Aug-14-13 10:47 PM

donnamay

Aug-12-12 1:56 PM

"Yup you guys are right I don't live in North Dakota."

donnamay

Aug-14-12 2:43 PM

"She is to Obama-nesk to be in the Senate. I feel that Berg will do a more conservative job."

donnamay

Aug-13-12 12:02 AM

"Never said I was in North Dakota."

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-14-13 12:40 PM

And your latest c/p from months past is relevant how, namexxx?

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Aug-14-13 11:13 AM

angeR69

Aug-12-12 1:52 AM

"I mistyped. I meant that he used the last letter of his name 3 times (to meet the MDN requirement for six-character handles."

angeR69

Aug-11-12 11:20 AM

"They love to call us racists. A thinking person would get that you threw the extra "K"s in there to meet the 6-character minimum for the MDN"

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Aug-14-13 6:12 AM

Legal abortions are not mandatory. Congress has not yet mandated that women have abortions if they become pregnant, but it might be something in the future.

Also, if abortion is legal, the gov can decide to legalize euthanasia, let's say for the retiring boomers who will become a liability more than an asset.

Future euthanasia clinics along with abortion services just might become the norm someday.

Anyone past the ripe old age of 64 or so or a couple of years before they retire will be carted off to be euthanasia clinic. Give them distinctive names like 'Rolling Hills' or 'Dream Cloud' or something like that.

There will be death panels in the future. It will be all people can afford, healthcare will be too expensive and letting them die will cost much less. It'll be part of the economy and the GDP will increase, so take heart. That's life in the post-modern era.

Sort of a Monty Python movie, yet it will all be for real.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-13-13 12:46 PM

namexxx, you need another hobby.

angeR, excellent posts as always.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Aug-13-13 11:19 AM

Nobody is proud to be a fearful, small-minded bigot. Anybody claiming that -- is also a liar.

REALITY CHECK:

ND has one of the highest suicide rates for middle-aged people.

ND is the beer guzzling capital.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Aug-13-13 10:00 AM

The Supreme Court ruled that because the abortion procedure itself is medical in it's nature, it is considered a private matter between the mother and her doctor. Therefore, medical privacy trumps the state's interest in preserving the life of the unborn. Effectively, it sheilds the mother and her doctor from having to prove medical necessity for an abortion, and gives us what we have today: abortions on demand as a matter of convenience. Clearly today, the vast majority of abortions are performed for no other reason than the child was unwanted - a fact publicly lamented by the orginal Jane Roe, Norma McCorvey, who is now ironically a pro-life activist.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Aug-13-13 9:59 AM

But the court didn't stop there. It further ruled that the mother had a right to privacy concerning her reproductive health. Sure, that sounds good. Why not? It's not the state's business anyway - except in regard to abortion. Why? This brings us back to the murky issue of compelling state interest, and this is where the I believe the court failed.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Aug-13-13 9:58 AM

"The fact is that women seek abortions. They do not want to be pregnant. They want an abortion. It is their choice, not the State's."

The fact is that the state DOES have a compelling interest in the preservation of life - even that of an unborn child. The Supreme Court conceded this point in Roe v. Wade, if only to rule that that compelling state interest applied only to the "potential" for life. The crux of the decision in Roe v. Wade was that the state actually had two compelling interests. One was the preservation of the life of the unborn child, and the second being the health and safety of the mother. When the two conflict, the court argued that the latter shall prevail.

From a pro-life standpoint, it would have been great if the court would have left it at that. I suspect there would have been no pro-life movement if the court had lived up to the meat of it's argument.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-12-13 7:30 PM

Is "human up" ok?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-12-13 7:01 PM

DustOff, it smacks of censorship, doesn't it, to only allow ND citizens to post here.

My, my, I think some liberals might be affected....

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-12-13 6:59 PM

No, no, leftywing. I'm NOT driving my car (mfg 2000) around ND with no liability insurance. Huge Brother, dressed in police clothing, might be watching.

I can kind of understand the rationale behind requiring liability insurance: when I run into your car, you need me to pay for that damage.

But I'm not running my body into anyone else's nor am I expecting anyone to run into mine. I do take personal responsibility for my med expenses. Why am I now FORCED to buy insurance, cheaper or pricier?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-12-13 8:00 AM

Trying once more...

Why is passing a law to force me to purchase insurance a "good" thing, and passing a law that defends the right to life of unborn children a "bad" thing?

It's possible in our "enlightened" post-modern society...

Grrr. Have a great Monday.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-12-13 7:59 AM

That sounds like a classic "you can't legislate morality" case.

So any legislation that purports to "do good" will no longer be necessary nor effectual, because people will do what they're going to do anyway.

OK. Throw out all the ten commandments, because people are going to do what they're going to do. No need for sharia, Hammurabi's code, "on your honor" or any other system of law, because people are going to do what they're going to do. No laws of any sort, if they're going to be "burdensome" to any, huh?

I consider the upcoming obamacare mandate to be a burden to me. Frankly, I'd rather not obey this law, and if the IRS/etc. wouldn't be able to find me to make me comply, I'd ignore it. But some legislators somewhere thought they were "doing good" by passing this law.

Why is passing a law to force me to purchase insurance a "good" thing, and passing a law that defends the right to life of unborn children a &quo

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Aug-12-13 7:25 AM

The figure I used is from a book, I didn't pull it out of thin air. The book is entitled 'Our Bodies, Our Selves'. It has a photo of a woman's body in a hotel room who had died from a botched abortion. Illegal abortions are most dangerous.

The fact is that women seek abortions. They do not want to be pregnant. They want an abortion. It is their choice, not the State's.

Had abortion remained illegal in all fifty states, there would still be abortions.

Whether it is right or wrong is maybe important to some, but it is not important to a woman who wants an abortion. If a pregnant woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she can and will abort the fetus. It is her choice. You may oppose it, but it won't matter if she succeeds in having an abortion.

It is far better to cope with the realities of life than to hope to change any of it with do gooder stumbling and bumbling or a state legislature that has its head in the sand.

It doesn't work that way in the real world.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 33 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