Diana MIller and Jake Hanes on Public Television tonight

By -


Diana Miller of No-on-E and Jake Hanes of the Amendment E crew go toe to toe at the public television debate tonight. Go watch the whole thing at SDPB.org as soon as it's posted.

Comments

been there said…
If Diana Miller's against, I'm for it.
11:33 PM
Anonymous said…
If Diana Miller is the best they can come up with, whoa baby, No WONDER they're nervous!
12:38 AM
Gina said…
It's kinda weird.

Every time Diana Miller appears on TV my dog throws up.
12:57 AM
Anonymous said…
I seldom agree with her, but Diana's right on this one.
12:58 AM
Anonymous said…
I think Diana is great. It is very difficult to debate a complete moron like Jake Hanes. It is even harder to debate someone when they are not being truthful or tell only half the story.
The Amendment E supporters have changed their story over and over. If you want to give the criminals all the rights....vote yes on Amendment E.
7:24 AM
Anonymous said…
Please note that Ms Miller spells Dianna with two 'n's. I am glad Dianna is using her skills and energy to chase after this goofy bunch. Has our beloved ballot initiative process been coopted by loons? I say vote no on E and then drive the proponents back to their secure compounds where black helicopters can maintain a secret vigil.
3:09 PM
yesE said…
In the debate between Jake Hanes and Diana Miller, Ms. Miller stated the E folks did not have one example, case of judicial misconduct in SD. WRONG! In fact, Chief Justice David Gilbertson - alone, siglehandledly - proved why E is required! Accordingly to the SDd State Bar "Minutes" of their December 8, 2005 meeting (conducted just after E qualified for the ballot) Chief Gilbertson was present at that meeting, that was called for the purpose of kicking off the Bar's opposition to E and called for raising $1-million. Gilbertson spoke at the meeting. According to the Unified Justice System's, website, his presence there violated about 5-6 judicial canons of ethics - particulalry that the judiciary is independent, a-policital. (Check it out). When the case on E challenging the Atty Genl's biased official ballot statment on E came to the Sd Supreme Court, Gilbertson recused himself, which a few papers reported. HOWEVER NO PAPERS ASKED WHY?????? HE RECUSED HIMSELF? That he attended the meeting alone shows he is in fact unfit for office - and he's SD's top judge! the fact that no SD judge brought this up shows it's a closed fraternity? Where were the other 2 branches? (Checks & Balances?) Where were the vanguards of our liberty, the lawyers? Where was the 4th Estate? (Why haven't any SD papers brought this up?) Ms. Miller wanted a case of judicial corruption in SD? How ironic, the Chief Justice provided the case. And provided it in spades. Refute this Ms. Miller. Refute this No On E! this is why SD needs Amendment E? This is why E will pass! YesE!
12:32 AM
mjb said…
And aside from horrendous spelling, we're still waiting for an example of a case that could be taken in front of the JAIL jury...
7:22 AM
Anonymous said…
Hmmm. Does MJB stand for Moron Just B****ing.

While I doubt this Moron Just B*****ing can read, (it does explain the use of initials), Moron Just B****ing can go to either websites, below:

www.southdakotagov.info

or

www.AmendmentE.com

That said, has Moron Just B****ing just awakened from a coma? Both websites have been up for a long time.

Which sparks another question.

If Moron Just B****ing can't read, Should a Moron Just B****ing be Allowed to vote?
8:49 AM
mjb said…
And the jury rests.

Apparently Anonymous (whose real initials are likely MW) can't come up with a real example, so he resorts to namecalling.

And from what I read on www.southdakotagov.info long ago, the only thing it seems to be an example of is a decade long campaign of stalking. And if the judge did anything, he's been far too lenient on ths guy.
12:05 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

KSFY: Advance copy of abortion measure in hand

By -
KSFY is announcing that they have an advance copy of the abortion measure in hand and are giving details on what it contains:
The new bill says if a woman's life is in danger, or she is a victim of rape or incest, an abortion can be performed upon certain conditions. Specifically, the bill says if a doctor determines the pregnancy has put a woman's life in danger and another doctor agrees with the assessment, an abortion can be performed. In a case of rape or incest, the crime must be reported within 50 days of the event. An abortion could then be performed no later than 17 weeks into the pregnancy in both cases.and...

A source tells KSFY there are 25 sponsors of the bill, but there is no prime sponsor, it's a group effort.You can read that all here, but that last line is complete BS. SOMEONE is going to have to put their name on the line as the prime sponsor of the measure.

Despite Gordon Howie being the likely person whose name is going to be on the line, I'm told that …
Read more

Wikipedia strikes again. Not Stephanie, but the Argus gets it this time.

By -
Check this out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_Leader:
ControversyIn March of 2006, the Argus Leader came under fire for attempting to control distribution rights within the city of Sioux Falls.The Argus Leader through a subsidiary company, News Center Distribution (NCD), had local businesses sign contracts saying that the Argus Leader controlled the publications to be distributed in their businesses. [2]The agreement allowed the Argus Leader to display and give away its free publications like Live, PetMag and City Style. Other independent publishers such as Prime, Renter's Guide, the Shopping News and others would have to pay the Argus Leader a fee to distribute their publications.But if the independent publishers didn't pay the Argus Leader, they threatened to physically take their competitors magazines out of contracted businesses.The Argus Leader’s move was viewed as a violation on First Amendment rights after they gained exclusive contracts to control distribution on …
Read more