Slamdance

"I'll contribute to Oxbow's fund and help you move away to a 'better place'." Sioux-cia First class to Tavarua, please. I understand this is not a "free-country". I understand your health-care argument. I just don't buy it. I am not debating the effects of smoking. I know smoking is bad. I know second-hand smoke is bad. I have kids. When I am visiting my family in GF and we all go out, we don't go to places that allow smoking, or find a table as far away as possible from the smokers. I wear my helmet when I ride, because it is safer and I don't want to pay a fine. The same with seat belts and car seats when my kids needed them. I did not like having the choice taken from me and I voted against all of those laws. Not because I'm irresponsible, but because I believe in freedom of choice. If you (prior to these nanny laws being passed) did not want to exercise common sense, I say let Darwinism take its course. jingoistic - chauvinistic patriotism (the dictionary is your friend)

And Oxbow6 (and anyone else who wants to throw the "love it or leave it" argument out there), My first instinct is to tell you to "piss off"... I am so over the jingoistic crap. Please come up with something better. The reason I and others on here are annoyed with these nanny laws is part of the democratic process. I vote precisely so my voice can be heard. I love my country. However, it is the most effed up one on the planet, except for all the other ones. I vote so I can bitch. And, as was said on the movie the "F-word"... "...the Republicans are trying to take my porn and the Democrats are trying to take my guns. Who speaks for me?"

If you really want to get off on a tangent about drinking age, I'm happy to oblige. I feel that if you are old enough to vote or fight and die for your country you are old enough to drink. Either lower the drinking age or raise the age of voting and military service. Your "15 year old being served alcohol" is not a valid argument. And, at this point in Fargo, neither is my bar owner allowing smoking. The smoking issue is what I am annoyed with. Prior to this law being passed, a business owner could LEGALLY allow smoking in his place. His employees would be aware of this and could decide to work there or find other employment. His potential customers could either patronize this place that allowed smoking or choose to go somewhere else. Those choices have been removed. That is not fair. The only accommodations here in CA are that smokers have to go outside on a smoking patio or, in the case of gov't buildings, 20 feet from any entrance, to enjoy their vice. Granted, the "20 ft. rule" is not seriously enforced, but it is part of the law. My guess is that a smoker in February in Fargo is pretty much S.O.L. I have already stated I like being able to go out and not smell of smoke by the end of the evening. That is not the point. The point is: our freedoms are being eroded and we as a nation are allowing it to happen. That is not why I honorably served my country.

Evenin' I do have a life outside my love of Sioux sports and home in general. First, Sioux-cia, I apologize if I sounded like I was attacking you personally. My "high-horse" comment was directed towards everyone who feels that they have the right/obligation to tell other people what to do "for their own good." If you feel you fall in that particular group, that's on you... As an aside, I agree with you on most other topics. (Except for Prpich, he's all yours as far as I'm concerned). I am not "pro-smoking" as much as "pro-freedom of choice." No one has yet to make a convincing argument to me that, if I was a bar owner, and I made it perfectly clear to my employees and customers, I allowed smoking in MY place of business, what right is it of the gov't to tell me I cannot do that? Someone said my use of the word "criminal" was extreme. When you are pulled over and cited for a traffic violation, for all intents and purposes, you are a "criminal" in the eyes of the law. The same holds true for business owners and patrons caught violating the "no smoking" laws. As insane Irish Steven said in "Braveheart", "stop changing the subject, just answer the fukkin' question."

Nice avoidance of the question. Who are you to tell me how to run my place of business? If you don't like it, don't give me your business. You can coat it in whatever buzzwords (public health, for example), but it still comes down to my rights as a business owner being trampled by the self-righteous telling me how to live and conduct my life. Get off your high horse. The smoking ban is unfair. Period.

Perhaps I'm a little slow. It is Monday, after all. Explain to me why it is fair that if I am a smoker or the owner of an establishment that allows smoking, I am now relegated to the position of a criminal? Example: I own a restaurant/bar. I inform my employees and clientele that I allow smoking in my establishment. You do not have to work here nor do you have to patronize my place of business. What the hell is wrong with that? Who are you to force your morality/health care issues/disgust with smokers/smoking down my throat? That is not fair. That is not freedom. Because of this smoking ban, previously innocent people are now criminals. Hell, I don't smoke, and this legislating of morality really pisses me off enough to start.

Fine. You choose to get involved. I commend you. In fact, if I were an uneducated parent and you took the time to politely educate me, I would sincerely appreciate it. However, I am so effin' over self-righteous people forcing their choices upon me and forcing me into the position of a lawbreaker, where in the not-so-distant past I would not have been. With the smoking ban, smokers and owners of establishments that still allow smoking are now in the position of being criminals. How fair is that? Seat belt laws Helmet laws Smoking bans Artificially low speed limits Etc. Some of these are just common sense, why do they need to be laws? Just because common sense isn't so common? Why is that my fault? Why can't I choose to smoke in a place that the owner allows smoking? Why can't drive my truck without a seat belt and suffer the consequences if I am in an accident? Why can't I ride my motorcycle without a helmet and, again, suffer the consequences if I am in an accident? Why can't I drive at a higher speed than 70 mph on flat straight surface from GF to Fargo? I don't care if you do it. It doesn't affect me. It's none of my business. Stop making my business, yours.

"Children don't have a choice." Isn't the choice of the parent to decide to smoke or patronize establishments that allow smoking and bring their kids there? Why is that my problem? When I go out to places with my kids, I choose not to go to places that allow smoking. When I go out with my adult friends, I choose to go to places we agree on, smoking or non-smoking. Isn't choice a wonderful thing? Why are you trying to take mine away? As an aside, as a motorcycle rider, my condolences go out to Krista's family. I do not know what her age was or if she understood the dangers of crashing without a helmet, but that doesn't mean a helmet law is good idea. Case in point, here in CA, there is a mandatory helmet law. However, it is legal to ride a motorcycle in just shorts and flip-flops, just as long as you have a DOT approved helmet. Hmmmm... BTW, being an organ donor is just the right thing to do, rider or not.

I find this thread kinda funny, because I have been living with the smoking ban here in CA for quite some time. It is nice to go out to a bar or two, and not smell horrible by the end of the night. Some of the bars illegally allow smoking. They set up "kitties" for the smokers to donate to if they are lighting up, in case the bar gets fined. I feel, as some on here do, that if I owned a business and wanted to allow smoking, why can't I do so? You do not have to patronize my place, you don't have to work here. Why are allowing this country to become such a nanny state? I ride motorcycles. Prior to the helmet law here in CA, I wore my helmet 90-95% of the time. It saved my life on a number of occasions. But I still voted against it. I do not like having my choices taken away from me. I don't smoke (except for an occasional cigar at home or in Vegas), but I am almost ready to take it up just to piss off all the self-righteous non-smokers. I remember when Dagwoods opened and was the first non-smoking bar in GF. I thought, "What a brilliant business decision." Everytime I visited home and went out to Dags, it was packed. Now that marketing opportunity for a new place is removed. I don't get it.

Ahh, boo freakin' hoo... You are in Austraila. The Lucky Country fer cryin' out loud! Go surfin', find a shelia, and a have beer or 15 and stop whinin'. Christ, I wish I was there, even during your winter, I loved it there.

Dunno if this a repost, but I thought it was interesting... http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020501.html

How true!!!

How do you figure Murder, Inc. was a myth? The sources quoted in the Wiki article are valid news accounts.

Please forgive my ignorance, but WTF is ARC?

Ahh, Hermit's just the troll under the bridge. I like to hear him ramble, he sounds "Hockey Helmet Special."

I'm guessing the temps up in GF have finally reached the Old Nick's home. It has officially frozen over and I'm finding myself in "agreeance" with "The Triouxper". As far as this being a "non-event", I don't know about that, but it sure is fuckin' funny.

Maybe you can do a YouTube rant like that kid did for Britney Spears...

I hope (against reason, I know), that I'm not overreacting by being disappointed in the fact that TJ was busted and suspended for a game. I think he is a great hockey player and, by all accounts, a stand up guy. But he has also made some poor choices that have caused him, his family, the team, and to a lesser extent, the fans, a bit of grief. I find it sadly humorous that the most strident voices protesting the discussion of this latest incident are saying "it's no big deal, why all the fuss?" None of the posters on this thread, as far as I know, work for USA Today, the Herald, or any east coast papers. So, someone besides us fans think it IS a big deal. The people who think it is not a big deal, what do you think should be the fans' reaction? What would be reasonable in your viewpoint? I'm not, in any way, shape, or form, saying that TJ Oshie is a bad guy, a criminal, should be punished, thrown off the team, etc. I'm not being hysterical, unreasonable, or angry in my disappointment that he made a poor decision and got arrested. Apparently some on this board would disagree, so you tell me, what my reaction SHOULD be? I await your responses with bated breath.

Here's the Triouxper's candidate for 2008... And...uhh...siouxbomb...I think you have me confused with dagies, do a little bit better checking of who you are quoting. I haven't convicted TJ of anything (nor has dagies as far as I can tell), I just think he was stupid for getting himself in trouble and (as stated on the TJ support thread) I hope the charges are specious and dropped for his sake.

The difference between students and student-athletes is the reason TJ is sitting out a game. By being arrested he violated a code of conduct that all student-athletes sign at the beginning of their season. Like it or not, they ARE representing UND. An athlete being arrested casts the school in a bad light. Guilt or innocence is for the court to decide, but just being arrested means you violated your responsibility as a student-athlete, thus the suspension and this little "debate". Was that redundant enough?

Ah yes, Vicodin and beer, the breakfast of champions...

I hate that damn dinosaur and are your hands clean?

Nope, not feelin' dumb yet. Because he SHOULD have done it and left it on the ice. And I don't expect any type of standards from any college students, I just take them at face value. They aren't raising my kids, I am (without ritalin and x-box, we have a PS-2 ).

WORD!!!

I hope the charges ARE dropped and all he has to lose is one game. And then I hope he finally learns his lesson. (Lord knows it took me long enough)