Governor Pawlenty On Beer Sales at TCF on WCCO

Bronko Post: "as usual i try to read what you post, but all i can see is "blah, blah, blah......give me my beer damn it! i am selfish and have a sense of entitlement to a level of service that i did not/am not wiling to pay for! i don't care if i am screwing over the U's athletic dept revenue options!"


I am starting to detect that you are developing an appreciation for the unique perspective that I bring to GopherHole. Maybe in a different time and a different place we could have been friends.
 

Just some rough math on the potenail loss on the lack of booze sales in premium seating.

39 suites in the stadium
17.5 average number of seats per suite
50 loge boxes
5 average number of seats per loge box
1500 club seats

2432 total number of premium seats give or take

7 games per year
which means 17024 individuals chances to sell alchol to people
now subtract 2024 for minors or non-drinkers(just a guess)

lets says on average over the course of a game a patron has 3 drinks.
and because its a stadium the cheapest drink you will be able to find will be 5 more likely closer to 7
thats 45000 drinks over the course of season at 7 a pop thats $315000 minus cost

then figure in the how many events won't be booked in the DQ Club room because they won't be able to serve any drinks. I would think the law banning beer cost the athletics department half a million dollars a year.
 

or you could say the decision to not serve beer at all costs the U many millions of dollars.

i like beer.

all for beer, beer for all.
 

Socialism or Communism?

Does this make the Legislature and Governor socialist, communist or other? I'm a little unclear if this action would label them socialist or communist. Based on some very quick reading on the internet I don't have a definitive opinion on what to label this action, other then simply pathetic.

If anyone can provide well educated arguments on socialism, communism or other for this action, it would be appreciated.

I'll air my personal feelings by saying it's very sad that our politicians believe it is so important to bring alcohol to a collegiate event. Is alcohol that important in our society? With everything else going on it's all the more surprising that they would spend time on this issue.
 

Does this make the Legislature and Governor socialist, communist or other? I'm a little unclear if this action would label them socialist or communist. Based on some very quick reading on the internet I don't have a definitive opinion on what to label this action, other then simply pathetic.

If anyone can provide well educated arguments on socialism, communism or other for this action, it would be appreciated.

I'll air my personal feelings by saying it's very sad that our politicians believe it is so important to bring alcohol to a collegiate event. Is alcohol that important in our society? With everything else going on it's all the more surprising that they would spend time on this issue.

This is easy. Neither applies. Not even close.

Socialism: refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer.

Communism: a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

Last time I checked what the legislature is doing has nothing to do with "state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" or "common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."

What you are looking for is:
Egalitarianism: a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large.

However, an even more accurate choice would probably be:
Pandering: In politics, portrayal of one's views to fit in line with a certain crowd of voters the candidate is attempting to impress.
 


Goldmember.....You Rang the Bell!

I, for one, am finnished pointing out how stupid the legislature's position is.

I now think you just let the booze flow freely. Make sure everyone gets totally f'd up and no one dares to bring anyone under the age of 16 to games. Let a few students die in the process, and let the politicians run around with all that blood on their hands.


I agree completely. My son and I have been puked on twice at the Dome at Gopher football games. Both times I really questioned whether they were old enough to buy the beer they were holding. Can we not have fun and watch a game without getting drunk. It is really immature, irresponsible and stupid.
 

Socialism

I am going with Socialism. I like this phrase from GoGold's post: "a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals". Who can disagree with that concept?.
 

I am going with Socialism. I like this phrase from GoGold's post: "a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals". Who can disagree with that concept?.

Well, considering that is egalitarianism and not socialism I guess I will. Its not a real hard concept. If we're not talking means of production then we aren't talking about socialism.
 

Well, considering that is egalitarianism and not socialism I guess I will. Its not a real hard concept. If we're not talking means of production then we aren't talking about socialism.

careful.....you will start to confuse upnorthgo4 with all of those big words - no of which are "beer"! ;)
 



GoGold, I suggest you take another look at your above post. The following phrase (I will write it again because I like it so much): "a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals" is taken word for word from your definition of Socialism. If your definition is wrong it was also my error for relying on the accuracy of your post. Rest assured that I won't make that mistake again.

Bronko, admit it. You just can't resist reading my posts, can you?
 

They should just serve beer everywhere. Nobody died at the Metrodome, our country is deathly afraid of a little booze.
 

I'll have a couple chalices before and a couple chalices after at Manning's. No worries about parking cuz we are riding are bikes to the game.
 

We are talking about a state run and funded institution here, not private business. I'm not sure if throwing around tags like socialism really means anything in this context, or any from the improper uses of the terms I hear lately.

mostly i'm for anything that increases the likelyhood I'll be able to buy a beer at the game. I could care less about other arguments. I want beer and i don't want to have to pay a premium seat charge to have it. My needs are simple. Outdoor football and a beer, is that asking too much??
 



We are talking about a state run and funded institution here, not private business. I'm not sure if throwing around tags like socialism really means anything in this context, or any from the improper uses of the terms I hear lately.

mostly i'm for anything that increases the likelyhood I'll be able to buy a beer at the game. I could care less about other arguments. I want beer and i don't want to have to pay a premium seat charge to have it. My needs are simple. Outdoor football and a beer, is that asking too much??

There are varieties of socialism by looking at definitions. Here is one that applies to the US right now:
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
 

They should just serve beer everywhere. Nobody died at the Metrodome, our country is deathly afraid of a little booze.


No, what they are afraid of is that university employees might possibly overserve patrons at a university-owned facility, then that overserved patron might get in his car and and on his way home potentially wipe out of a family of 5 in a mini-van on I-394. It is one thing if a guy leaves a bar and is overserved. It is something entirely different if it is a university-sanctioned event, hosted at a university-owned facility, being sold and hand-delivered by university employees. There is no way to keep track of just how drunk someone is when you're dealing with keeping track of 50,000+ people.

That said, in the grand scheme of things, you are right, no one ever died after years of games at the dome.

So, I tend to think the U should simply say - what the hell - if the lawmakers of this state endorse the idea that it is okay to serve beer to everyone, then okay, let's serve beer to everyone and rake in the additional revenue (which would likely be millions in beer sales and sponsorship money).

And, if that family of 5 gets wiped out by a drunken fan heading home from the game, then those ambitious lawmakers who made such a big deal out of it and thumped their chest about how they're representing the peasants, probably will not feel so high and mighty about their self-proclaimed stellar work on this anymore. Nope those same hypocritical lawmakers will run from it faster than Bryant Allen runs the 60-meter dash. But, hey, they sponsored the bill, advocated for it's approval, affirmed it, and must live with it's possible ramifications if the U puts it into effect.

In my opinion, the U can wash their hands entirely of any negatives that come from it by simply saying they were following the great leadership of these zealous legislators.
 

GoGold, I suggest you take another look at your above post. The following phrase (I will write it again because I like it so much): "a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals" is taken word for word from your definition of Socialism. If your definition is wrong it was also my error for relying on the accuracy of your post. Rest assured that I won't make that mistake again.
Sigh. Somehow I knew I'd log on this AM and find an intellectually lazy response from you. I'm going to post my FULL definition again:
Socialism: refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer.​
Let’s see if I can keep this simple for you. You are certainly correct that the phrase you are fixated on is part of my definition of socialism. But not the key part. See, like many folks guilty of intellectually lazy arguments you have chosen to ignore the part of the definition that negates your argument and have zeroed in on the part that does.

If you look above you will see that I’ve bolded the word “And”. I’m going to go all School House Rock on you for a second. “And” is a conjunction. Do you know it’s function? In this case “And” functions to connect 2 parts of the definition. It ties the primary portion (refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods) with the secondary portion (a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer). See, when “And” is used both parts of the definition must be true for you to be able to refer to something as Socialism. Cherry picking the portion that fits doesn’t cut it.
In case you feel I’ve cherry picked the definition I’ll link to a few more:
A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.
An economic system based on state ownership of capital.

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism

An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (ie, capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all.
www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html

An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning.
countrystudies.us/united-states/economy-12.htm
I see a pattern above and I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with “a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals”.

Now, you could try to claim that in your opinion this is Socialism. Except that there is an established and agreed upon definition for Socialism. You can be of the opinion that half of it is BS…but that doesn’t make you right. It makes you inflexible and ignorant (just like if you said in your opinion, the sky is neon green with pink polka dots).

I’d also note that by calling this action Socialism you are suggesting pretty explicitly that you are a Socialist since you strongly support the actions of the legislature. I believe I shall now call you Comrade Upnorth. What intellectually lazy argument will you raise now Comrade? (Hint: this is the part where you scream about me violating your civil rights by agreeing with the U that they can restrict your access to alcohol on their property.)
 

There are varieties of socialism by looking at definitions. Here is one that applies to the US right now:
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

Yea...socialism still has nothing to do with forcing the U to serve beer. Your definition of it does nothing to change that.
 

GoGold: Let me spell it out for you. If you monitored the Off Topic Board you would understand that Obama and and his supporters (of which I am one) are going to turn the U.S. into a full-fledged Socialist state in the next 7 1/2 years. When that happens no state-run institution like the U will ever again try to restrict the sale of beer to elitists sitting in premiums seats. Every law abiding adult is going to be able purchase beer at college sporting events no matter where they are sitting. At least that is my dream for America. Let me use your quote for the third time: "a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals"

P.S. before you decide to write another multi-paragraph response to one of my posts, I recommend that you crack open a beer and chill out.
 

GoGold: Let me spell it out for you. If you monitored the Off Topic Board you would understand that Obama and and his supporters (of which I am one) are going to turn the U.S. into a full-fledged Socialist state in the next 7 1/2 years. When that happens no state-run institution like the U will ever again try to restrict the sale of beer to elitists sitting in premiums seats. Every law abiding adult is going to be able purchase beer at college sporting events no matter where they are sitting. At least that is my dream for America. Let me use your quote for the third time: "a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals"


And who's money is "every law abiding adult" going to use to purchase that beer???

Equal opportunity does not mean equal results you moron!
 

GoGold: Let me spell it out for you. If you monitored the Off Topic Board you would understand that Obama and and his supporters (of which I am one) are going to turn the U.S. into a full-fledged Socialist state in the next 7 1/2 years. When that happens no state-run institution like the U will ever again try to restrict the sale of beer to elitists sitting in premiums seats. Every law abiding adult is going to be able purchase beer at college sporting events no matter where they are sitting. At least that is my dream for America. Let me use your quote for the third time: "a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals"

P.S. before you decide to write another multi-paragraph response to one of my posts, I recommend that you crack open a beer and chill out.

What the heck do the nonsense ramblings on the OT board have to do with this? Now I know you're as big an idiot as you seem. Keep ignoring the actual meaning of words all you want. All it means is anyone who lives in reality gets to point and laugh. You'll probably mistake it as cheering or something, but you also think up is down. And if you are actually an Obama supporter who thinks he'll bring about socialism...boy, are you in for a rude surprise! Egalitarianism is not socialism, not matter how badly you may wish to equate the two. I'd recommend before you keep making things up you learn to read and exercise that pile of mush you call your brain.
 

The point is, if you put a competitive product on the field all the rest of the rewards will come such as adding seats to the stadiums, longer term leases on the boxes, more advertising revenue, etc.

You're banking on a reversal of a 40 year trend. Not exactly the smart way to put together a budget.
 

Well, at least you restricted your response to one paragraph. We're making progress. Now if you can just learn to chill out we will really have something.
 


Obama Fever Has Come to the Beer Sales Controversy

GoGold: Let me spell it out for you. If you monitored the Off Topic Board you would understand that Obama and and his supporters (of which I am one) are going to turn the U.S. into a full-fledged Socialist state in the next 7 1/2 years. When that happens no state-run institution like the U will ever again try to restrict the sale of beer to elitists sitting in premiums seats. Every law abiding adult is going to be able purchase beer at college sporting events no matter where they are sitting. At least that is my dream for America. Let me use your quote for the third time: "a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals"

P.S. before you decide to write another multi-paragraph response to one of my posts, I recommend that you crack open a beer and chill out.


You need to read a little Ayn Rand to get your head straight. A Ron Paul presidency would help you break your Obama fever. Turn off MSNBC, get plenty of rest and then get a job.
 


Well, at least you restricted your response to one paragraph. We're making progress. Now if you can just learn to chill out we will really have something.

If your head hurts when you read longer posts just take a break, sound out the longer words, and keep at it! Hooked on Phonics might help with the reading, but it won't do anything to help you with you inability to use logic.
 

Oh well. It appears that chilling out is going to take a bit longer for you to learn.
 

Last time I checked, we live in a capitalist society! That means people with more means have access to more things! Oh no, perish the thought! Someone actually bettered themselves and earned more money so they can enjoy the finer things in life! What an "elitist" prick!

Seriously, true socialism and/or communism (in theory) would be the height of human achievement. But this, of course, would have to go in tandem with a basic redefining of human nature: that we all focus on our own best interests. And unless humans as a species are willing, very quickly, to sacrifice our own well-being for the interests of the common good, socialism/communism will never be more than a theory, and cannot work in actual practice.

When you take away the ability to excel, you are removing incentives for doing so. And by removing incentives, both the quantity and quality of goods and services will diminish rapidly. So good luck ever enjoying a nice vacation again, or for that matter, living past the age of 50. Research, technology, advancement, etc. would all be meaningless, as there would be no incentive to do so.

What does all of this have to do with beer sales in TCF? Much like an individual, the U must always act in its own best self-interest in the furtherance of self-preservation. This is why beer will never, ever be served during a college football game there. There is far too much risk associated with its consumption. How many millions of dollars in beer sales is even one human life worth?

you are right, no one ever died after years of games at the dome.

This is something that can never be proven. There is no way of knowing whether someone drank in excess and either killed themselves or someone else on the way home from the Metrodome. One would think that something like this would be publicized, but that is not necessarily so.

Are we trying to achieve the gold standard that Wisconsin has set for us? The reason that state sucks so much is that all people care about is drinking and acting like idiots. My wife's entire family is from Wisconsin, and out of all her parents' siblings, only one settled down and had kids in Wisconsin, while the rest moved out of state. Guess what? All three of her cousins from that family are raging alcoholics, while the other, non-Wisconsite cousins all enjoy in moderation. Is that what we as a fan base aspire to? To be like Wisconsin? If that is the case, I may renounce my Gopher status and start cheering for Florida or something.
 

Booze has been sold at Gopher games for the past 26 years at the Metrodome. There have been some issues, but not a lot of them. Why will it be the end of the world as we know it if it is served in TCF Bank Stadium? A lot of private schools allow alcohol ON CAMPUS, IN THE DORMS. Of course nobody wants to see a college kid get in trouble or harmed due to alcohol consumption, but I'm wondering if this is being made out to be a bigger deal than it really is.

Really the big booze-related situation I am hoping to see go away is the early exit for the student section. I cringe every game as the student section empties out by the middle of the third quarter. I'm assuming this is because they want to put their party hats on, or they are getting into position to ride the shuttle bus back to campus without standing in a long line. Either way, I just hope the new location, new traditions, etc. mean the student section will stick it out for the entire game after the move.
 

A lot of private schools allow alcohol ON CAMPUS, IN THE DORMS.

Unless something has changed since I graduated, legal students can drink in the dorms at the U all they want. But again, this shifts the liability to the students themselves, because they are drinking in their own rooms and are not drinking beer they purchased from the U. Moreover, they take on the responsibility if anyone underage is being served.
 




Top Bottom