Go Gophers!!! Booze at The Bank?

Donate To GopherHole


AO54 said:
If you don't want the taxpayers to have a say, don't take their money. As it is, taxpayers elect legislators who elect regents.
Click to expand...

But where does this principle end? Should Twins fans be able to demand the right to bring in coolers of the their own beer to Target Field because they paid for the stadium and hence they get to make the rules?
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
But where does this principle end? Should Twins fans be able to demand the right to bring in coolers of the their own beer to Target Field because they paid for the stadium and hence they get to make the rules?
Click to expand...

Exactly. The legislators could have tried to get the U to agree to concessions when the stadium bill was debated (like they did to make it possible for fans to bring food into Target field). The fact is that the Legislature knew the beer plan early on and didn't show any sign of caring until the faux-populist frenzy we saw in 2009.
 

If the regents aren't doing what the legislators elected them to do, maybe it will take a constitutional amendment, I don't know. and I wouldn't be opposed to selling beer at high school games. It probably would be impractical for a majority of booster clubs who run high school concessions to apply for permits and whatever else is needed, but I certainly wouldn't try to stop any high school from attempting to sell beer.
 


Just a question and I'm not sure what relevance it might have regarding this debate, but does the Dome sell beer at the state HS football games? My opinion on this whole matter is rather simple. Beer is legal to those of a certain age, allow them to buy it. I understand some people get dumb, but they were probably dumb as hell around 9am. I doubt any amount of beer the U allows or disallows will change any sort of problems at a stadium any way. Might as well make millions from a LEGAL product and let the people govern themselves. I have a feeling that most of our gameday crowd does a good job of policing ourselves anyway and in an uncontrollable event, which happens with or without beer sales, we have police.
 

AO54 said:
If the regents aren't doing what the legislators elected them to do, maybe it will take a constitutional amendment, I don't know. and I wouldn't be opposed to selling beer at high school games. It probably would be impractical for a majority of booster clubs who run high school concessions to apply for permits and whatever else is needed, but I certainly wouldn't try to stop any high school from attempting to sell beer.
Click to expand...

Now I get it. You are opposed to the idea is that the Regents are supposed to be making decisions that they think are best for the U even when those conflict with the legislators. Yes, if you think the Regents should be a parrot for the Legislature then your best best is a constitutional amendment getting rid of their constitutionally protected autonomy.
 

For What It's Worth:

I'm a recovering alcoholic. I've been through drug and alcohol rehab 3 times (don't ask...)

One of the key questions that comes up in rehab is: how do you know if someone is an alcoholic/drug addict?

A couple of indicators:

1. pre-occupation - meaning, you think about drugs or alcohol all the time.
2. Inability to enjoy any activity unless you are using drugs or alcohol.

Based on this thread, there are a few people on this board who may want to seek some counseling........

And to AO54's suggestion about selling beer at high school games - You can't be serious. You can't use tobacco products on school grounds - they're sure as heck not going to allow beer. Among other reasons why - Legal liability. If you serve me beer and I get drunk and wreck my car, you can be held legally responsible. Do you really want high schools getting sued under dram shop laws?
 

No, I don't think the legislature should micromanage everything about the U, this is why they delegate responsibility to Regents, but the ultimate authority should rest with the people.

and perhaps they should allow tobacco on school grounds as well. I don't really want a teacher to be blowing smoke at the kids in the classroom, but it's just odd that they can't go outside during their prep period or whatever to have a smoke. I also obviously hate the dram shop laws that downplay personal responsibility and would vote for judges who would not hold the school liable for an individuals stupid actions.

I don't think the regents are being elitist, they're just wrong. It's not complicated: Sell the beer, make money, and kick out the idiots.
 



AO54 said:
No, I don't think the legislature should micromanage everything about the U, this is why they delegate responsibility to Regents, but the ultimate authority should rest with the people.

and perhaps they should allow tobacco on school grounds as well. I don't really want a teacher to be blowing smoke at the kids in the classroom, but it's just odd that they can't go outside during their prep period or whatever to have a smoke. I also obviously hate the dram shop laws that downplay personal responsibility and would vote for judges who would not hold the school liable for an individuals stupid actions.

I don't think the regents are being elitist, they're just wrong. It's not complicated: Sell the beer, make money, and kick out the idiots.
Click to expand...

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
 

Wow, someone saying they should sell beer at high school games and should allow tobacco use in schools? I am out of this arguement, it just got beyond rediculous. But thanks for the laughs
 

Did I forget to mention guns and sugary soda?
 

DLguy said:
Wow, someone saying they should sell beer at high school games and should allow tobacco use in schools? I am out of this arguement, it just got beyond rediculous. But thanks for the laughs
Click to expand...

He must be from Wisconsin or North Dakota :rolleyes:
 



GoAUpher said:
Exactly. The legislators could have tried to get the U to agree to concessions when the stadium bill was debated (like they did to make it possible for fans to bring food into Target field). The fact is that the Legislature knew the beer plan early on and didn't show any sign of caring until the faux-populist frenzy we saw in 2009.
Click to expand...

+1. If the Legislature wanted to make a federal case about this when the bill was being debated, I might feel differently. I'd still disagree with rejecting the stadium over this issue, but at least it would have been a valid arguement. This was done in hindsight, and changed rules that had been in place for basketball and hockey for decades, all because one legislator is too dumb to know there was a difference between the Metrodome and an on-campus facility.
 

howeda7 said:
+1. If the Legislature wanted to make a federal case about this when the bill was being debated, I might feel differently. I'd still disagree with rejecting the stadium over this issue, but at least it would have been a valid arguement. This was done in hindsight, and changed rules that had been in place for basketball and hockey for decades, all because one legislator is too dumb to know there was a difference between the Metrodome and an on-campus facility.
Click to expand...

+19, but also there were enough legislators dumb enough to go along with him.
 

howeda7 said:
+1. If the Legislature wanted to make a federal case about this when the bill was being debated, I might feel differently. I'd still disagree with rejecting the stadium over this issue, but at least it would have been a valid arguement. This was done in hindsight, and changed rules that had been in place for basketball and hockey for decades, all because one legislator is too dumb to know there was a difference between the Metrodome and an on-campus facility.
Click to expand...

False. If it was one legislator, it would have failed with only one vote. And you were doing so well.
 

station19 said:
+19, but also there were enough legislators dumb enough to go along with him.
Click to expand...

Yes, for the last time this was not a partisan issue. The DFL in this state can't get the Republicans to go along with anything they propose yet for some reason there are people on this board who think that Tom Rukavina is some kind of pied piper who blew his flute and forced everyone to follow him. If Rukavina had such magical leadership powers don't you think he would use them on larger issues than this one?
 

station19 said:
+19, but also there were enough legislators dumb enough to go along with him.
Click to expand...

There is nothing dumb about it. Why would anyone run for the Minnesota legislature unless they wanted their views to be implemented as law or policy on a state-wide basis?

How many posters in GopherHole support the Tea Party agenda? I would guess quite a few do. The Tea Party would undoubtely support beer in the cheap seats at the Gopher's Stadium.

To say it another way: Tea Party = Populism = Beer at the Bank.

You naysayers need to get on board. You are in grave danger of being left behind and made totally irrelevant to what is happening in the world. If that happens, your children will start to tune you out at a very early age. God help you if they do.
 

While I think that the legislature was misguided in interfering with the U's control of its own alcohol policy, this was a bipartisan misguidedness.
 

This has nothing to do with the tea party. This has to do with a lot of gopher fans telling the regents they're stupid. Most people could care less what every other university does, they would choose to make money by selling beer everywhere they could.
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
Yes, for the last time this was not a partisan issue. The DFL in this state can't get the Republicans to go along with anything they propose yet for some reason there are people on this board who think that Tom Rukavina is some kind of pied piper who blew his flute and forced everyone to follow him. If Rukavina had such magical leadership powers don't you think he would use them on larger issues than this one?
Click to expand...

Although, make no mistake, Rukavina spearheaded the effort. An effort that he was so well-researched and educated on that his speech to the floor on this issue is on public record and he said:

1) Michigan sells beer at their stadium (they don't)
2) Michigan is no longer a member of the Big Ten (they are)
 

AO54 said:
This has to do with a very few gopher fans telling the regents they're stupid. Many people care what every other university does, they would choose to make money by selling beer in the luxury boxes.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 

tjgopher said:
Although, make no mistake, Rukavina spearheaded the effort. An effort that he was so well-researched and educated on that his speech to the floor on this issue is on public record and he said:

1) Michigan sells beer at their stadium (they don't)
2) Michigan is no longer a member of the Big Ten (they are)
Click to expand...

If you want to say Rukavina is an idiot, then say he's an idiot. That's your opinion and I won't argue with you about it. However, the fact that he spearheaded the effort is irrelevant. Republicans went along with him willingly and the bill went forward with bipartisan support. To act like nobody else bears any responsibility for it because Rukavina was most prominent in the effort is silly. I'll ask again, why haven't the Republicans been charmed into following Rukavina in other efforts that he's spearheaded?
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
I think that our disagreement is one of semantics so let me try and layout my position more clearly. I do not believe that there is any sort of "scheming" or "conspiracy" going on here. What the U of M (and virtually every other college and university) is trying to do with their alcohol policy is extremely transparent. They want to reduce the amount of alcohol fueled bad behavior that goes on inside the stadium as much as possible.

Is what they are trying to do "controlling the masses?" I can see why you think that that rhetoric goes too far. However, there is no doubt that their policy represents at a minimum an attempt to influence (or control, if you will) the behavior of fans at the game. I don't think that stating that fact implies that there is any sort of sinister intent on behalf of the people responsible for putting the policy in place.
Click to expand...

Even allowing beer to be sold only in the first half would offer a logical control on over-consumption and would add revenue and limit problems. Maybe that would also be the policy in the suites.
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
If you want to say Rukavina is an idiot, then say he's an idiot. That's your opinion and I won't argue with you about it. However, the fact that he spearheaded the effort is irrelevant. Republicans went along with him willingly and the bill went forward with bipartisan support. To act like nobody else bears any responsibility for it because Rukavina was most prominent in the effort is silly. I'll ask again, why haven't the Republicans been charmed into following Rukavina in other efforts that he's spearheaded?
Click to expand...

In a perfect world every legislator would research every bill that comes before them. Unfortunately that will NEVER happen. So instead you have one or two people present "facts" about the legislation and then they vote based off what they heard. So the primary responsibility for being factual lies with the bill sponsor. However, it's a little disturbing that not one single member of the legislature didn't call Rukavina on his claims that: Michigan not in the B1G, that the Metrodome was run by the U, or that most college stadiums sell beer to all people.

The problem isn't a party problem - it's a trust problem. This time it was complete lies about alcohol at stadiums, next time it will be lies provided from some lobbyist. Unless you have people on the take from both sides of an issue, the legislators only hear one side and have to base their vote on that. Based off the "facts" presented by Rukavina, it seemed like the U was doing something wrong. Why wouldn't a Republican or Democrat vote to stop that injustice?
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
In a perfect world every legislator would research every bill that comes before them. Unfortunately that will NEVER happen. So instead you have one or two people present "facts" about the legislation and then they vote based off what they heard. So the primary responsibility for being factual lies with the bill sponsor. However, it's a little disturbing that not one single member of the legislature didn't call Rukavina on his claims that: Michigan not in the B1G, that the Metrodome was run by the U, or that most college stadiums sell beer to all people.

The problem isn't a party problem - it's a trust problem. This time it was complete lies about alcohol at stadiums, next time it will be lies provided from some lobbyist. Unless you have people on the take from both sides of an issue, the legislators only hear one side and have to base their vote on that. Based off the "facts" presented by Rukavina, it seemed like the U was doing something wrong. Why wouldn't a Republican or Democrat vote to stop that injustice?
Click to expand...

The poor politicians were innocent victims of the all-powerful Rukavina? Nonsense.
 

RodentRampage said:
False. If it was one legislator, it would have failed with only one vote. And you were doing so well.
Click to expand...

Touche. But if Rukavina and only Rukavina had been allowed his beer, the issue likely wouldn't have been raised.
 

RodentRampage said:
The poor politicians were innocent victims of the all-powerful Rukavina? Nonsense.
Click to expand...

No one is a 'victim.' But to most leglislators and most constituents, this was a very minor issue. They didn't research it. They have no idea and/or don't care that it's done that way at every other University in America. 'Beer for one, beer for all' sure sounds good. That was the extent of the thought put into it for the vast majority.

And they were either naive enough to think the Regends would cave to thier demand, or dumb enough not to realize it would cost the U a couple million bucks a year, while accomplishing nothing.
 

AO54 said:
If you don't want the taxpayers to have a say, don't take their money. As it is, taxpayers elect legislators who elect regents.
Click to expand...

What does my quote have to do with the taxpayers not having a say? I said the GOVERNMENT. Meaning, the elected officials who thought it was a good idea to tell the U how to run the U's stadium.
 

The Pope of Dinkytown said:
This matter involves a principle that is too important to place in the hands of the morons who run the U. Thank God we have the Governor and State Legislature to prevent them from making elitist decisions to the detriment of the average, hard working, football loving, and taxpaying Minnesotans who own the U and everything in it. I will be damned if I am going to allow teetotalling academics to make these kinds of decisions. The U used to be one of the greatest research Universities in the world until liberal weenies took it over in the 1960's and ran it into the ground along with a proud football tradition which resulted in six National Championships. We haven't won crap since they started running things. It is high time for changes at the U. Let's start with Beer at the Bank.
Click to expand...

You are a retard communist. Go back to mother Russia.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom