Angry Guy pulls it off again
l3wis 
February 2009
South DaCola legislative prediction – Smoking Ban
UPDATE: I think it will pass and be signed into law. I just found out the House took out the gaming hall exception.
I think the smoking ban will fail in the Senate but if it does pass, Rounds will veto it and use the Deadwood gaming hall exception as his excuse claiming it gives them an unfair advantage.
What do you think?
Just for the record
Not just a pretty face, but also a rabble rouser
I compared representative Noem to Palin, way back in the day; just read her BIO, funny stuff.
But Madville adds a little more to my original findings.
I find it extremely funny that a ‘retired farmer’ would take on Heidepriem. I agree with Kristi, he has a conflict of interest, but you may be barking up the wrong tree. West River vs. East River. This is just starting to heat up.
So now everyone in the South Dakota blogosphere is a satirist
Well I guess if Folkarts can do it, anyone can? Right?
I am flattered though, seeing the popularity of my site, the other two top SD political bloggers have followed suit. I guess if you can’t beat em’ join em’!
I do understand Pat’s toon but am having trouble with Todd’s. Is there an asterick somewhere I can follow Todd that explains them?
Ethics – Smethics
The Sioux Falls city council is still hung up on this crap. “How dare a citizen question my intentions!” The pure ARROGANCE of this rule change stinks to Holy Hell.
He (McKnight) noted the ordinance indicates that anyone can request an advisory opinion from the board, but at the end, a clause says only a city official may request an advisory opinion about his or her conduct.
Â
“It creates a conflict,” McKnight said.
Councilors say advisory opinions are not always confidential and the process has been used for political purposes.
What!? When I asked for an advisory opinion I was trying to make sure councilors who had conflicts of interest would not vote, in turn PREVENTING anyone from filing a complaint. It was no different then the recent Sanford zoning vote when Bob Litz asked the city attorney if he should vote on it. IT IS WHAT IT IS – AN OPINION! Would they prefer they voted and citizens started filing complaints? I see that as a much worse scenario.
As for claiming it is ‘Political’ – WTF is that supposed to mean? That statement is so ridiculous, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You are a politician, everything you do when representing city government is ‘political’ DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?! As a private citizen anything I do is not political, considering at the time I asked for my opinion I did not belong to ANY Political action group and have been a registered independent for over 7 years, I represent myself as a private citizen. Period.
This is just another attempt by our local government to try to silence public dissent.