Fetch Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=921472777986817&id=202558496544919 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 The mindless garbage this backwater/bush-league Legislature comes up with is beyond description. Don't they have better things to do while they are there? I suppose when you get elected solely because of the letter you have behind your name, you can afford to waste our time and money on nonsense like this. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxphan27 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 So does this mean I can't wear a mask while robbing a bank? Geez! Foiled again! I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling legislators! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 This bill is an offspring of the DAPL protests where ... masked ... highwaymen shut down a state highway illegally. You know, if I'd have been travelling Hwy 1806 and masked people stopped me illegally I'm pretty sure I'd have believed I was in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death.* *Some know what I just said. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 However, the "mask" bill isn't the worst, least thought out, most buffoonish bill this session. That winner is:https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/nd-legislation-classify-internet-connected-device-pornographic-vending-machine/ At least a day after introduction they killed it:https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/nd-legislation-classify-internet-connected-device-pornographic-vending-machine/ Yup, that bill would've charged every internet connectable device in ND $20. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Don't we have budget issues? Why are they playing with video games and masks? How about they work on the budget and have play time, eat dessert, at the end of the session. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted January 14, 2017 Author Share Posted January 14, 2017 1st they wanted to study the medical mj law now they say they want to study recreational - just a way to delay medical for 2 yrs I hope the 60+ medical voters remember & not vote for any incumbents 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John W. Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Legislature will deal with 'fluff' and ridiculous issues....but then pass a budget bill late at night of the last day....and go home....it's their modus operendi. !!!!!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milford torgerson Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 10 hours ago, John W. said: Legislature will deal with 'fluff' and ridiculous issues....but then pass a budget bill late at night of the last day....and go home....it's their modus operendi. !!!!!! Yet we continue to reelect them. ugh! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 12 hours ago, Milford torgerson said: Yet we continue to reelect them. ugh! Not much choice in these parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/14/2017 at 10:13 AM, The Sicatoka said: However, the "mask" bill isn't the worst, least thought out, most buffoonish bill this session. That winner is:https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/nd-legislation-classify-internet-connected-device-pornographic-vending-machine/ At least a day after introduction they killed it:https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/nd-legislation-classify-internet-connected-device-pornographic-vending-machine/ Yup, that bill would've charged every internet connectable device in ND $20. Someone pointed out to me over the weekend that your home thermostat, if 'net connected, would've fallen under this bill. :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericpnelson Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said: Someone pointed out to me over the weekend that your home thermostat, if 'net connected, would've fallen under this bill. :-D my garage door would have as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 No one ever said about the isp my parents have century link and their isp comes out of Fargo. Would nd have be taxing Minnesotans then? Also, we get the same treatment except from the other side of the aisle in St. Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 http://www.valleynewslive.com/content/news/Bill-would-limit-out-of-state-students-for-NDSU-and-UND-411151515.html This can't be for real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0616-02000.pdf The actual bill limiting nonresident students. Looks like it limits nonresident student enrollment to 150% of resident student enrollment. Decent chance it's unconstitutional. Edit: Upon further reading, it would seem to be 150% of resident student enrollment for each reciprocity agreement. So the only ones this would come close to affecting are Minnesotans, who are currently around 100% of resident student enrollment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 Plus any goofer fans should be automatically rejected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 hour ago, UNDBIZ said: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0616-02000.pdf The actual bill limiting nonresident students. Looks like it limits nonresident student enrollment to 150% of resident student enrollment. Decent chance it's unconstitutional. Edit: Upon further reading, it would seem to be 150% of resident student enrollment for each reciprocity agreement. So the only ones this would come close to affecting are Minnesotans, who are currently around 100% of resident student enrollment. Why should they care if there is more Minnesotans than North Dakotans that go to UND/NDSU/etc. They should be happy that they are leaving to go to North Dakota instead of staying in Minnesota for roughly the same price (from a MNSCU perspective). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 hour ago, SWSiouxMN said: Why should they care if there is more Minnesotans than North Dakotans that go to UND/NDSU/etc. They should be happy that they are leaving to go to North Dakota instead of staying in Minnesota for roughly the same price (from a MNSCU perspective). Enrollment affects how much the state has to budget for the colleges. The long-term impact of increased population and business in the state (increased tax revenue) thanks to nonresidents attending our colleges isn't as easy to see sometimes as the immediate impact of increased spending on the colleges. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.