Skip to Content

scott gibson

paynesville, MN
Commenter for
4 years 50 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 07/18/12 at 03:14 pm in response to McCain rips Bachmann's Muslim Brotherhood accusations

because, NO ONE is pure enough to represent the current Republican Party. In their eyes, virtually all past Republican leaders/national candidates have been 'liberal lackeys'. That list would include not just McCain, but Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bob Dole, GHW Bush & G W Bush, etc. There can be no appeasement with perceived political enemies, either within or outside of the country. Of course, those perceptions villianize most everyone else on the planet. Only folks like Santorum...

Posted on 07/19/12 at 09:07 am in response to McCain rips Bachmann's Muslim Brotherhood accusations

just to devalue his defense. Guess what, there are Muslims out there. You will have to try to get along with most of them. Might try incorporating them into the American dream, even if they don't fit your narrative 100%. Conservatives can't just wave their magic wands and kill everyone that isn't exactly like them.

Homes and landscapes in towns like Bemidji, Cass Lake and Grand Rapids in northern MN, faced devastating numbers of downed trees of all types from the July 2nd wind storm. It wasn't a tornado. Buildings were not as affected as the trees, tens to hundreds of thousands of them. Entire cities will now look dramatically different for the rest of our lives. Check out some of the stories at the Bemdji Pioneer website.

Posted on 07/09/12 at 09:08 pm in response to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie renames Photo ID amendment, too

What Ritchie has done with the naming of these amendments is, undeniably, political. I would prefer neither amendment existed to be voted on, as the motives behind both seem specious, political and mean-spirited. Ritchie is defending his turf. His move is partisan, and probably won't change many, if any, votes. Still, sticking amendments onto the ballot without working with the minority representatives or the governor was a blatant end run around the legislative process.

Mr....

Posted on 06/30/12 at 05:28 pm in response to Q-and-A with Kurt Bills on the issues of the day

As some kind of qualification for the job. He's a bit embarrassing. He should not reference his students. His classroom work is irrelevant here. A high school classroom is not an economics think tank. Keep the kids out of it. They are not your prop.

you're not in 'wilderness.' The seduction of the cell phone experience will be more damaging than the light from the tower. Imagine all the folks who will now be taking their phones along. It defeats the purpose of the trip.

Posted on 06/20/12 at 10:39 am in response to Pawlenty on the ticket? Two presidential thinkers assess his chances

And probably has little effect on the outcome in other midwestern states. Pawlenty is not a presence. Bachman blew right past him there. Sure, Pawlenty is good at being an attack dog. He is, at his base, a mean-spirited opportunist. It would be a contrast, of sorts, to Romney, but it doesn't expand Romney's appeal in a national sense. Pawlenty is also a poster boy for partisan governmental inaction ('My way or the highway'). That will also marginalize Romney's overall appeal.

Dark was very entertaining. I enjoyed listening to him for years, but caveat emptor. He was fine pontificating on his area of 'expertise', but I would cringe when he (and he often recruited Mike Max to help) would offer comments on the national political scene. He was great in the playground that is sports.

The dark side of the Dark man was his emergence from the world of gambling and his elevation of the connections between gambling and sports. Yes, I acknowledge that this link...

grasp the idea that we voted for Obama because we felt he was a better choice than McCain? Race had nothing to do with it. So who is being racist by implying it was otherwise. Keep running losers and you'll keep losing.

Posted on 04/28/12 at 02:24 pm in response to Few if any pro-stadium votes from Minneapolis DFLers

It must be that. DFL legislators come right out and say that, don't they? Actually, I think support and opposition to the stadium is bipartisan and for much the same reasons for both parties. Democrats might believe that gambling is a 'tax', albeit voluntary, that impacts the poor more than the rich. That still falls, sort of, on the 'immoral' side. Republicans may believe that the economic gains the Vikings accrue if the stadium is built, using some form of public subsidy (and gambling...