Cratter

Left/Right. It shouldn't matter. It should be something we can all agree on....because its In the Constitution. It's to bad we get farther away from it everyday.

Ah yes, the Million Dollar (philosophical) question, "Do you believe in the humanity of your fellow man (or woman)?" Do you believe given a choice the average person would do "good" or "bad"; "right or wrong"? I like to believe my neighbor is generally "good" and would do "the right thing." Hence more individual choices and less government intervention/interaction. I know where you stand. (of course there is no "right" or "wrong" answer).

I understand there is controvery. I am not saying one way or another. Was just trying to make a simple point. But there is a reason they need to have websites about the safety of vaccines, because it is widely held for right or wrong belief that it may help lead to symptoms. Hence the controvery, and the arguement why one might want to opt out (not saying I would, just like I would obviously education my kids ) I understand that it may not cause it, but to say there is no way it can't or won't, Why would the Courts in the USA claim within the last year

As I have said, I plan to. I am glad it passed as I look forward to not stinking after going home and I don't smoke. I understand its a hard concept to grasp; someone standing up on principal: One that says a person who risks their (lifetime) capital to start a small business has the right to open a place where its customers come to enjoy a legal product where no one under the age of 21 would be allow....not a bar, just a place to come to solely smoke with other smokers.

I could make a case for every single one of these. In case you haven't heard, theses Mandatory immunizations have been known to lead children to develop Autism. (as a judge has admited hence financial payments) I think its sad the Government thinks they own your kids and tells you they have to shot your kid with "medicine." Let's say you don't believe it may have led to Autistic like symptoms, well it would at least be nice maybe if those who do had the choice to not vaccinate their kids with MMR because who knows, but maybe "better safe than sorry." No choice to live a "natural" God created life. A crazy answer I know - Being born and then "nothing." Oh yeah lets not forget the United States Court of Federal Claims created a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Thanks Government for that fine for my grass being too tall. Thanks for the law saying I can't have a pink house. What would we do without them. Its for the good of the community because my neighbors didn't like my choice of color or tall grass. Unlike me, they don't think it "looks good." Once again the Government thinks they know what is best for my children. Why is one forced to go to school til the age of 18, why not 16, 15, 14, 13? Even if they hate school, do nothing, and fail third grade for 15 years? (if that case were true I am sure the Government would take your child). Speaking of, don't be surprised if the USA passes a law similar to the One-child policy of China one day if it is ever needed, because the ground work has already been set in America. A law I would strongly oppose. "Oh its okay to have more than one child....if you pay a fine". Yeah, Water that is "natural" God Created without any chemicals added. Yeah that would be bad. Where does it end?

Great quote. The two party system is ruining our country. We feel we must pick a side and stick with what they believe. Not ourselves. We will fight the other side. The answer to your question is the Libertarian Party - The one that wants less government in peoples lives. The party of Real Change. The one party that would bring people together. Like others have said I am not "for smoking" (I don't smoke), I am "pro freedom of choice" on virtually every issue. We understand the "health" arguments, but those can be said about riding a motorcycle and smoking tobacco in general, not against government regulation....as others say it sounds more like outlawing the products. Take for example consuming alcohol in city parks in Grand Forks. It use to be that it was okay to do so. But then one day the GF Government said "No you can't do that, well at least without paying us money first (a tax). Then I guess it is okay otherwise we will give you a large fine for what you use to be freely able to do! Call me Crazy! I can't rely believe people here are saying "if you don't like it here move." Exactly the opposite of what this country believes in. I guess that is why so many people move out of ND and is one of the least populated states....I have heard people tell others a million times the same thing in ND, "if you don't like it move." Most do. Sorry I didn't respond earlier I left the computer. Health Care costs is a very complicated subject/topic. Should government get involved or not, etc. How are costs best handled. Very hard to answer. And I don't think it really ads to this arguement but No, Honestly, I don't have a problem paying taxes with everyone else to pay for someones (stupid) choice. I (along with everyone else) pay for someones choice to smoke, to eat Big Macs everyday, to go ride a bicycle without a helmet. We all pay for these choices. The choice for people to do stupid things that are totally legal. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I totally agree with everything above. I support wearing helmets 100%. I just don't support having a law forcing someone to wear one. I choose to keep my personal opinions seperate from the making and passing of laws that force others to think and/or act like me.

Again: We live in a (Constitutional) Republic in which the majority rule is tempered by the minority rights protected by law. Our Founding Fathers actually warned against a Democracy - A society where 51% would overrule the other 49% to protect them from ""tyranny of the majority." * I understand the USA is a representative democracy. As there are different types of Democracies.

Reminds me of something quite funny actually. Could one legally be able to buy tobacco but not legally be able to smoke it anywhere: any public place (already law in places), around young people (law against smoking in a car when children present), in your own home, even outdoors (at UND where they said you can't smoke outside - though not yet technically illegal yet), etc? Sound like it couldn't happen? Alcohol just didn't become illegal one day. First states passed laws banning "strong liquor." Then came health arguements in the name of safety (sound familiar). Of course knowing that you can help make people "safer and healthier" states began to ban it. Tea merchants and soda fountain manufacturers generally supported Prohibition, thinking a ban on alcohol would increase sales. Then one day you right to have a cold beer was taken away nationally by the government. Another similar story could be had for the most widely used illegal drug, cannibas. It wasn't always illegal to smoke it (1937). But again the name of safety came up. So the government didn't make it illegal. They just made you pay a tax (Marijuana Tax Act) that the government would rarely issue. All fueled by the fact that tobacco companies knew they would see higher profits. Boom: less individual choice that only hurts the user (or all of society as some would argue ).

I guess before I can answer you questions, I should get an answer to my question: Would you be for outlawing motorcycles all together? (in your case in the name of safety) Based on your answer I assume, you would.

It is not just bars, it is any public place (I believe). SO, actually, yes, someone is stopping someone else from smoking. .....all in the name of safety. (War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Immigration, War on Stinky Poop)

Why not just outlaw motorcycles? Then no one could die with or without a helmet on one? Would you vote to outlaw motorcycles? Because when i reread you statement replacing "helmet" with motorcycle you get the same arguement. The "choice" to ride a (motor)bike should be taken away because its for the "betterment of public health"? Like I said earlier, this country is/was great when we don't pass laws because we personally don't believe the same way as others (smoking, helmets, drugs, gay marriage, abortion, gun ownership).

All right good argument....now replace that "customer" with "owner." Both have the same right: one who can open a non smoking bar and one that can open a smoking bar. Who is more "right"? It use to be no one was "right," hence the individual owner had the right to choose the business how they wanted to run their own business.....but I guess now thar "right" has been taken away. The right to do what one chooses.

Call me crazy, but its a sad day in America when I can't open a Bar called: "Cratter's Bar and Cigars" - A place for people that went to have a drink and have a smoke. This place of course would be where people like me (the owner) would go to enjoy a drink and cigar. But I should be thankful because the Government knows best and is looking out for me by saying "NO" you can't smoke inside. It's called the slippery slope and there is no end in sight. UND already now has an outdoor ban on smoking. Again call me crazy.....but that should never happen anywhere. I have been known to frequent a MPLS bar. Bars and smoking just seem to go together. So the bar decided to help out there smokers by making a nice smoking section in the back of the bar outside...low and behold the place was so busy they decided to add a bar outside and sell alcohol. They eventually added heaters (for the winter), lights, and a canopy. The nonsmokers would come out to hang out because of the popularity. Again to bad they couldn't have added walls for wind protection for the "smokers" because I guess then it would technically be a bar that had smoking....thanks Government. A note that makes America Great: Just because you don't agree with something (smoking) doesn't mean we should pass laws to ban or prohibit them. We live in Free Republic not a Democracy. Alexander Hamilton, also in 1788: End Rant from a nonsmoker.

People being able to vote where they live for the majority of the year (anyone; not just students).....who would have thunk it?

Logic would tell you that is because a lot of those fans went over to bisonsports.net and a lot of the UND talk can be found there. Because as you put it, it essentially started because of the need for a place where people can openly talk about UND without administrator interference. I actually have never visited the site yet. Is bisonsports.net becoming more popular than Bisonville?

Umm, If there is a thread called essentially "NDSU/UND football game: talk smack here": (this thread maybe?) Why would you have a problem with it? It would have the sole purpose of people to talk smack who enjoy it; a place where other people can go and talk about something you don't enjoy. Knowing this why would you have a problem with it? Why would you "waste your time" and become frustrated reading it when you know what it is already about. My general theory (not directed at you) is that a lot of people enjoy talking smack (directly or indirectly with or without knowing it). That is why you see those topics so popular. Lets face it; sometimes it can get "boring" around here with not much to talk about and/or the same old stuff. This is why you might see one thread in this forum have numerous postings per day. It would continuously be at the top of the forum. "Others" would find themselves reading it because they would be curious to what is so "popular" and what people are talking about, even though they know it would be smack. They would then thus eventually find themselves posting there too.....realizing they are doing what they don't want to do "talking smack"....Its like a drug.....just say no. In a way it is like a free market economy. If there is no demand for a smack thread it would fall off the front page because no one is talking about it and no one would have to worry about it or reply "lame topic". Otherwise there would be a "market" for it and it would be popular. *This is not advocating "smack" in anyway. I rarely do it; just like drugs.

I agree. Women's hockey right now is in its infancy stages, just like Womens Basketball in the day. Now look. Who would have thought it might have outdrawn the men back in the day? Now we have Womens Pro Basketball. I only see Womens Hockey as a potential to grow. More HS programs are adding womens hockey teams, so that is good.

Word up to that. Dean Blais had mentioned on numerous occassions that if this crazy concept of Big Ten Hockey Concept ever came to fruition. This Arena would help UND tremendously in getting into that conference. Heck, helped UND so much even if they didn't get invited to the BTHC it doesn't appear UND needs to worry too much. If they could create a pretty strong conference with Duluth, Mankato, St. Cloud, Tech, etc. UND would be the team to beat (like UM and Wisconsin now). It would be their job (UND) to try and help the entire conference become stronger. UND entering Division I in all sports will be huge if there is a chance UND wants to get invited to the BTHC. The Big Ten Hockey Conference is not a myth, especially with the formation of the Big Ten Sports Network. They will have a lot of money thanks to the rights to broadcast games and a lot of money to throw at schools to get them to form a conference with the huge return to nationally televise those hockey games on their network thus making even more money. As The Sicatoka says "follow the money." This is not a myth or far off concept but reality closing in every day. You don't think Wisconsin and Minnesota would love to play other "big name" schools all year long (UND included)? They would love to play Michigan and Michigan State every year in conference play. Ten years of talk only means one thing. It is not going away. The more talk there is the more people get to thinking about it and how to make it a reality. Dean Blais did talked about it for a reason and not because he thought it would never happen.

That is quite the odd promotion.

It appears the best we can hope for is to replace Bemidji St with the loss of Wisconsin and Minnesota with the hopes that UND will be able to become a member of the Big Ten Conference since it will obviously need members anyways. Otherwise a conference UND is in without "Big Names" (MN & WI) would be very bad for UND.

To kiss butt a little: I think the moderators have done a perfect job on this board. They make the ultimate decisions but also take into accounts what the users want. They are willing to try new things to see if they work while always updating this site to make it better. Jim and others continue to let people know their positions so the "informal rules" (noise to content ratio) seem to be clear to most, or at least those who are regular users (the ones who are the most important to keeping happy). Kudos.

I don't think it would be that hard for the WCHA (or any other team) to make/pay for a trophy and start its own history instead of having to always worry about having Michigan Tech being in the league for use of their cup. Now that I think about it. Who needs the history of the McNaughton Cup. Shouldn't the league care more about the history of the WCHA and its championships than the simple name and looks of the cup that the winner is awarded?

If that was the case the arena wouldn't be on the verge of setting a record this season (perhaps you missed that part or didn't read the article) for the number of sellouts. Since the arena is nothing new and the team isn't dominating every team. Rather it is the hard work of the REA staff using their collective heads to finally find solutions to common problems like the article states:

I too hope Bemidji St isn't added. They would water down the league. All this would mean less games against more traditional rivals and give reason for the proponents of a Big Ten Hockey League. The WCHA just can't go around adding schools. 10 is a good number.