PDA

View Full Version : Pawlenty warns Viking fans that his state won't fund new stadium for team



COJOMAY
06-27-2007, 09:48 AM
http://www.forestcitysummit.com/articles/2007/06/26/news/news07.txt
FOREST CITY - Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty would love to see states like Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, North Dakota and his own do a little more cooperating.

He'd also like to see a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings, but at the same time, he hasn't changed his mind when it comes to substantial state funding for a home for the NFL team.

BadlandsVikings
06-27-2007, 09:56 AM
Bastards

Marrdro
06-27-2007, 09:58 AM
"BadlandsViking" wrote:


Bastards

Ditto

NodakPaul
06-27-2007, 10:10 AM
The whole quote isn't as bad:

But for Viking fans, the news isn't as good. He said he favors following the same scenario used for the Twins' stadium - namely, the state giving a local entity the power to raise funds for a new Vikings' home. The Twins partnered with Hennepin County on a hotel/restaurant tax to raise funds for the stadium.

“The problem is that Minneapolis by ordinance can't do it,” he said, “and Hennepin County looks like it will do the same. That leads to the question who will do it? I'm not against a new stadium for the Vikings, but I haven't changed my mind on the state paying for it. We have more important priorities than a stadium.”

I think that a metro tax is still a viable option.

And keep in mind that just because he isn't in support of a state money to help pay for it doesn't mean that it won't happen.
If the bill gets past the legislature, he would face a pretty tough decision to veto it.

Purple Floyd
06-27-2007, 10:28 AM
Raising taxes is always a good thing.

mountainviking
06-27-2007, 10:32 AM
D'oh!
How many years does he have left?
It won't help to have the gov. against it...

NodakPaul
06-27-2007, 10:33 AM
"mountainviking" wrote:


D'oh!
How many years does he have left?
It won't help to have the gov. against it...


He was reelected in 2006, and he would be up again in 2010.
There were rumors that he might be John McCain's running mate in 2008, but he denied those.

jmcdon00
06-27-2007, 10:42 AM
How about a tax on viking's tickets? Or a Hennepin Country tax near the dome on game days? The people that enjoy the vikings should be the ones who are paying for the stadium. To just raise a on everyone seems to me to be fundamentally unfair.
Don't get me wrong, I really want a new stadium, but I don't want more taxes.

Purple Floyd
06-27-2007, 10:45 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


D'oh!
How many years does he have left?
It won't help to have the gov. against it...


He was reelected in 2006, and he would be up again in 2010.
There were rumors that he might be John McCain's running mate in 2008, but he denied those.


McCain is sinking like a stone, no chance he gets the nod.

Marrdro
06-27-2007, 11:01 AM
I really don't blame the MN public for not wanting more taxes.
Someone told me that in 2008 you would become the highest taxed state.

Anyone else heard that?

http://www.retirementliving.com/RLstate2.html

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/TheBestAndWorstStatesForTaxes.aspx

NodakPaul
06-27-2007, 11:04 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


How about a tax on viking's tickets? Or a Hennepin Country tax near the dome on game days? The people that enjoy the vikings should be the ones who are paying for the stadium. To just raise a on everyone seems to me to be fundamentally unfair.
Don't get me wrong, I really want a new stadium, but I don't want more taxes.


The Vikings would only use the stadium 10 to 12 times per year.
The rest of the year the MSC would be able to use it for other events, just like they do now with the metrodome.
Any taxes levied for the construction of a new stadium should be levied against all of these events too, not just the Vikings.

Plus, the community at large directly benefits from events in a stadium.
They see more business, which drives revenues up, which in turn increases property values, which in turn generates more tax money for the city, county, and state.
Any money put in by the gov't would be seed money that is recouped.
Just like the metrodome recouped its entire construction cost well ahead of schedule.

Financially, the metrodome was a success for the state, which is why I don't understand why they are so against doing it again.

cajunvike
06-27-2007, 11:04 AM
Pawlenty is a TURD BURGLAR!!!

marcosMN
06-27-2007, 11:24 AM
"cajunvike" wrote:


Pawlenty is a TURD BURGLAR!!!


That's what I've been saying all along. And Ventura before him.

Man we Minnesotans sure can pick some guv'nas...
::)

Json
06-27-2007, 11:35 AM
McCain is sinking like a stone, no chance he gets the nod.

I agree with this comment.
I can't really stand McCain anymore.
He really comes off as an arrogant jerk off IMO.
I actually wanted to like him to be honest, but over the last year or so he's really turned me off.

As for the stadium, it's sounds as if the governor could give two shitz less if the stadium is built or not.
Sure he says he'd like to have a stadium but he is unwilling to budge on any sort of an agreement about the state helping pick up the tab.
You can mark my words, if the stadium deal is not complete within the next few years the Vikings will be gone.

Marrdro
06-27-2007, 11:38 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


How about a tax on viking's tickets? Or a Hennepin Country tax near the dome on game days? The people that enjoy the vikings should be the ones who are paying for the stadium. To just raise a on everyone seems to me to be fundamentally unfair.
Don't get me wrong, I really want a new stadium, but I don't want more taxes.


The Vikings would only use the stadium 10 to 12 times per year.
The rest of the year the MSC would be able to use it for other events, just like they do now with the metrodome.
Any taxes levied for the construction of a new stadium should be levied against all of these events too, not just the Vikings.

Plus, the community at large directly benefits from events in a stadium.
They see more business, which drives revenues up, which in turn increases property values, which in turn generates more tax money for the city, county, and state.
Any money put in by the gov't would be seed money that is recouped.
Just like the metrodome recouped its entire construction cost well ahead of schedule.

Financially, the metrodome was a success for the state, which is why I don't understand why they are so against doing it again.

Political rhetoric used to fool the uneductated masses to convince them to vote for certain parties during the upcoming elections
;D

Zeus
06-27-2007, 11:47 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


The whole quote isn't as bad:

But for Viking fans, the news isn't as good. He said he favors following the same scenario used for the Twins' stadium - namely, the state giving a local entity the power to raise funds for a new Vikings' home. The Twins partnered with Hennepin County on a hotel/restaurant tax to raise funds for the stadium.

“The problem is that Minneapolis by ordinance can't do it,” he said, “and Hennepin County looks like it will do the same. That leads to the question who will do it? I'm not against a new stadium for the Vikings, but I haven't changed my mind on the state paying for it. We have more important priorities than a stadium.”

I think that a metro tax is still a viable option.

And keep in mind that just because he isn't in support of a state money to help pay for it doesn't mean that it won't happen.
If the bill gets past the legislature, he would face a pretty tough decision to veto it.


Why can't the money from the original tax which was enacted to pay for the Metrodome (and conveniently never taken off the books) be used?

=Z=

NodakPaul
06-27-2007, 11:53 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


The whole quote isn't as bad:

But for Viking fans, the news isn't as good. He said he favors following the same scenario used for the Twins' stadium - namely, the state giving a local entity the power to raise funds for a new Vikings' home. The Twins partnered with Hennepin County on a hotel/restaurant tax to raise funds for the stadium.

“The problem is that Minneapolis by ordinance can't do it,” he said, “and Hennepin County looks like it will do the same. That leads to the question who will do it? I'm not against a new stadium for the Vikings, but I haven't changed my mind on the state paying for it. We have more important priorities than a stadium.”

I think that a metro tax is still a viable option.

And keep in mind that just because he isn't in support of a state money to help pay for it doesn't mean that it won't happen.
If the bill gets past the legislature, he would face a pretty tough decision to veto it.


Why can't the money from the original tax which was enacted to pay for the Metrodome (and conveniently never taken off the books) be used?

=Z=


I would be just fine with that.
I didn't realize it was never taken off from the books.
WHat is that money being used for now, and how big is the tax?

EDIT- after further research, I am not sure that there still is a tax imposed.
http://www.msfc.com/history.cfm

The Metrodome, as the country's only public stadium that does not rely on a continuing tax subsidy to finance operations, maintenance or debt payments, has truly established itself as Minnesota's Rec Room during the past 20 years.

vikingivan
06-27-2007, 12:16 PM
"Json" wrote:



McCain is sinking like a stone, no chance he gets the nod. You can mark my words, if the stadium deal is not complete within the next few years the Vikings will be gone.



That would be terrible.
It would be like a death in the family.
I hope it does not get to that point, but we might be the next Cleveland.
There team leaves.
The NFL informs them if they build a new stadium they can get an expansion team.
I expect the total cost of a new stadium now would be around 600 million.
If they wait until the Vikes leave and then build one.
You can double that cost.
Might as well raise the sinners tax.
Like we don't pay enough for our beer now.
I don't smoke so at least I would get a break there.

sleepagent
06-27-2007, 12:17 PM
After reading the history article . . . I get the feeling that people just like to fuss for no real valid reason up in Minnesota.

Someone in the Vikings organization needs to show that all these same arguments were made many years ago . . . and look how things turned out!

If the state is short on cash, which most are in this day, having the local host city do something . . . because they stand to benefit the most . . . makes very good fiscal sense.
Depending on the proximity to a neighboring county / town, they could even share some of the costs.

Zeus
06-27-2007, 12:24 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


EDIT- after further research, I am not sure that there still is a tax imposed.
http://www.msfc.com/history.cfm

The Metrodome, as the country's only public stadium that does not rely on a continuing tax subsidy to finance operations, maintenance or debt payments, has truly established itself as Minnesota's Rec Room during the past 20 years.


I haven't been able to find it, but I know I heard on KFAN last year that the tax which was originally imposed upon either Hennepin County or Minneapolis to partially fund Metrodome construction was never taken off the books, even though it no longer was being used for that purpose.
I'll keep digging....

=Z=

AngloVike
06-27-2007, 02:55 PM
That sounds about right, forgetting to take off a tax when the purpose it was created for has long passed.
I'm not familiar enough with Minnesota politics to be completely understanding of it - but why oh why do the politicians there make such hard work about the stadium issue. Sports are a part of many peoples lifes and go towards their quality of life and surely keeping the people happy is part of successful government.
As has been said before the loss of revenue, income tax from players etc etc would be a big loss to the State so why can't the politicians see this - or are they just of the opinion that if the team goes then any shortfall will be made up by increasing taxes.
*shakes his head at such short sightedness *

PackSux!
06-27-2007, 05:50 PM
What we should do is stop giving to these god damn people who come to Minnesota and spit out kid after kid so they can sit on their fat asses and collect welfare for the rest of their lives.
I for one would rather see my hard earned money get taxed for a stadium then watch it go to some low life slut that sits on her ass all day and does nothing.

VikemanX84
06-27-2007, 06:01 PM
"PackSux!" wrote:


What we should do is stop giving to these god gol 'darnit people who come to Minnesota and spit out kid after kid so they can sit on their fat dimply buttocks and collect welfare for the rest of their lives.

I for one would rather see my hard earned money get taxed for a stadium then watch it go to some low life slut that sits on her jiggly butt all day and does nothing.


Haha, because all people on welfare are like that... NOT! In fact I'd wager less than a percent of them are.
I'd rather see my money go to take care of kids who parents have fallen on a prolonged period of dismay than to a billionaire.


Eitherway, a new Vikings stadium would greatly benefit the Minnesota and Twin Cities communities.
It would more than likely pay for itself as well.

C Mac D
06-27-2007, 06:24 PM
"VikemanX84" wrote:


"PackSux!" wrote:


What we should do is stop giving to these god gol 'darnit people who come to Minnesota and spit out kid after kid so they can sit on their fat dimply buttocks and collect welfare for the rest of their lives.
I for one would rather see my hard earned money get taxed for a stadium then watch it go to some low life slut that sits on her jiggly butt all day and does nothing.


Haha, because all people on welfare are like that... NOT! In fact I'd wager less than a percent of them are.
I'd rather see my money go to take care of kids who parents have fallen on a prolonged period of dismay than to a billionaire.


Eitherway, a new Vikings stadium would greatly benefit the Minnesota and Twin Cities communities.
It would more than likely pay for itself as well.



I want to see my
money in strippers' thongs.

singersp
06-27-2007, 06:50 PM
“The problem is that Minneapolis by ordinance can't do it,” he said, “and Hennepin County looks like it will do the same. That leads to the question who will do it?

Now are you people starting to believe me when I said Hennepin County/Minneapolis won't fund another stadium via taxes.

You're going to be hard pressed to find another county in Minnesota who will help fund a stadium that sits in Hennepin County.
;)


They pissed away a $250 million dollar opportunity to build it in Blaine. Now they are trying to build it in a county that can't & won't help fund the stadium.

Now what?

COJOMAY
06-27-2007, 06:58 PM
So, who are you gonna root for when the Vikings move?
Me? Probably Nashville since it's fairly close and I hate the Bengals.

RK.
06-27-2007, 07:00 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


So, who are you gonna root for when the Vikings move?
Me? Probably Nashville since it's fairly close and I hate the Bengals.

They will still be the Vikings.
Just not the Minnesota Vikings.
;)

BadlandsVikings
06-27-2007, 07:01 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


So, who are you gonna root for when the Vikings move?
Me? Probably Nashville since it's fairly close and I hate the Bengals.


NOBODY!!!!

PackSux!
06-27-2007, 07:15 PM
"VikemanX84" wrote:


"PackSux!" wrote:


What we should do is stop giving to these god gol 'darnit people who come to Minnesota and spit out kid after kid so they can sit on their fat dimply buttocks and collect welfare for the rest of their lives.

I for one would rather see my hard earned money get taxed for a stadium then watch it go to some low life slut that sits on her jiggly butt all day and does nothing.


Haha, because all people on welfare are like that... NOT! In fact I'd wager less than a percent of them are.
I'd rather see my money go to take care of kids who parents have fallen on a prolonged period of dismay than to a billionaire.


Eitherway, a new Vikings stadium would greatly benefit the Minnesota and Twin Cities communities.
It would more than likely pay for itself as well.


Less then a percent?
I will gladly take that wager.
I dont want to really go into detail but there is a reason why alot of people move to minnesota and it isnt because of the weather.

singersp
06-27-2007, 07:22 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:



So, who are you gonna root for when the Vikings move?



I think I will just lay down, assume the fetal position & finally die of depression.

NodakPaul
06-27-2007, 08:44 PM
"singersp" wrote:



“The problem is that Minneapolis by ordinance can't do it,” he said, “and Hennepin County looks like it will do the same. That leads to the question who will do it?

Now are you people starting to believe me when I said Hennepin County/Minneapolis won't fund another stadium via taxes.

You're going to be hard pressed to find another county in Minnesota who will help fund a stadium that sits in Hennepin County.
;)


They pissed away a $250 million dollar opportunity to build it in Blaine. Now they are trying to build it in a county that can't & won't help fund the stadium.

Now what?


Just quotes from one politician who is not in favor of the Vikings Stadium (regardless of what he says).
If he wanted a local backer for the stadium so bad, he would have supported the Anoka plan.
Funny how his words only fit the current situation.

Plus, there is no indication that Hennepin county is going to pass any ordinance like the city has, and he is quietly forgetting about the possibility of a metro tax.
That and Minnesota isn't his state.
He skidded into the governor's mansion with only 1% of the vote, and there are plenty of state politicians who are not exactly his friends.
State money is still a very real possibility.

And the Vikings didn't piss away the Anoka plan.
Political heavy weights got the Army Corps of Engineer to conveniently declare the area a protected wetland, and the majority of the state legislatures were not on board.
At least with the Minneapolis plan we are starting with a little more support on the hill.

COJOMAY
06-27-2007, 08:58 PM
"RK." wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


So, who are you gonna root for when the Vikings move?
Me? Probably Nashville since it's fairly close and I hate the Bengals.

They will still be the Vikings.
Just not the Minnesota Vikings.
;)


Heck, if you think I'm gonna root for a team from LA, you are sadly mistaken! I didn't do it for the Minneapolis Lakers and I'm not gonna do it for the Minnesota Vikings.

singersp
06-27-2007, 09:06 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:



“The problem is that Minneapolis by ordinance can't do it,” he said, “and Hennepin County looks like it will do the same. That leads to the question who will do it?

Now are you people starting to believe me when I said Hennepin County/Minneapolis won't fund another stadium via taxes.

You're going to be hard pressed to find another county in Minnesota who will help fund a stadium that sits in Hennepin County.
;)


They pissed away a $250 million dollar opportunity to build it in Blaine. Now they are trying to build it in a county that can't & won't help fund the stadium.

Now what?


Just quotes from one politician who is not in favor of the Vikings Stadium (regardless of what he says).
If he wanted a local backer for the stadium so bad, he would have supported the Anoka plan.
Funny how his words only fit the current situation.

Plus, there is no indication that Hennepin county is going to pass any ordinance like the city has, and he is quietly forgetting about the possibility of a metro tax.
That and Minnesota isn't his state.
He skidded into the governor's mansion with only 1% of the vote, and there are plenty of state politicians who are not exactly his friends.
State money is still a very real possibility.

And the Vikings didn't piss away the Anoka plan.
Political heavy weights got the Army Corps of Engineer to conveniently declare the area a protected wetland, and the majority of the state legislatures were not on board.
At least with the Minneapolis plan we are starting with a little more support on the hill.

He is more than just a mere politician, he is the Governor & has the power to VETO legislation. What I find troubling though, was I thought he was behind the stadium only a year ago. I guess with an election year coming up & taxpayers already paying for a Twins & Gophers stadium, he's changed his tune.

The Anoka plan passed in the house, the Minneapolis plan isn't that far along yet, so you can't be sure of all who's on board & who isn't.

As far as the wetlands & the politicians getting the Army Corp of engineers to declare that a protected wetlands, do you have proof of that?

I recall the Army Corp of engineers wanting to do that, but don't recall them saying the politicians were the ones making them do that.

Also, It was never declared a wetlands to my knowledge anyways. In fact Anoka county has big plans for that same site, now that the Vikes abondoned it.

Kind of difficult to do that if it's protected wetlands.
;)

Blaine sets corporate goal for ex-Vikings site (http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1235523.html)

City officials are looking for a large corporate presence on a vacant site once considered for a football stadium.

By Susan Feyder, Star Tribune

Last update: June 10, 2007 – 3:42 PM

NodakPaul
06-27-2007, 10:01 PM
"singersp" wrote:


He is more than just a mere politician, he is the Governor & has the power to VETO legislation. What I find troubling though, was I thought he was behind the stadium only a year ago. I guess with an election year coming up & taxpayers already paying for a Twins & Gophers stadium, he's changed his tune.

The Anoka plan passed in the house, the Minneapolis plan isn't that far along yet, so you can't be sure of all who's on board & who isn't.

As far as the wetlands & the politicians getting the Army Corp of engineers to declare that a protected wetlands, do you have proof of that?

I recall the Army Corp of engineers wanting to do that, but don't recall them saying the politicians were the ones making them do that.

Also, It was never declared a wetlands to my knowledge anyways. In fact Anoka county has big plans for that same site, now that the Vikes abondoned it.

Kind of difficult to do that if it's protected wetlands.
;)

Blaine sets corporate goal for ex-Vikings site (http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1235523.html)

City officials are looking for a large corporate presence on a vacant site once considered for a football stadium.

By Susan Feyder, Star Tribune

Last update: June 10, 2007 – 3:42 PM



The Governor can veto, and the legislature can overrule a veto.
Checks and balances.
Besides, using veto power can lead to political backlash the next time the governor has a political agenda he wants passed.
Look at how much trouble Bush is going through with Congress right now.

As far as the Army Corps of Engineers, no I don't have proof that politics played a part.
Just speculation, but it is shared by many, including most of KFAN last year.
And much of it was declared wetlands, which the link you posted even says:

About half the property is wetlands, and the Army Corps of Engineers has to approve projects based on their environmental impacts.
Here is some more on the issue:
http://vikings.scout.com/2/571724.html

A ruling by the Army Corps of Engineers concerning wildlife breeding grounds in the proposed stadium site has potentially put tacit approval of any stadium on hold for a year or more. If an environmental impact statement is required before a shovel can move ground, there could be a delay of a year or more and a hefty cost
http://skolvikes.blogspot.com/2006/07/viking-notes.html

Out of nowhere, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is throwing a big stink because some of the land that the Vikes and Anoka County was going to use for the new stadium is wetlands protected by the Army Corps.

I don't blame the Vikings one bit for not getting the Anoka plan done.
I blame the State legislature - mostly the Hennepin county officials who were very vocal about supporting the Twins ballpark and UoF stadium but not the Vikings Stadium.

damien927
06-27-2007, 11:03 PM
what a bunch of crap..... they are going to screw around and end up costing the state big time.
If they want to keep the Vikings in Minnesota it will have be with SOME help in the form of state funding.
Every year they delay, they cost both the state and the team millions of dollars.
Pawlenty claims it doesn't make fiscal sense right now..... at what point will it make sense... in 2013, when the state would have to kick in 600 million to fund a 1.8 billion dollar stadium?
Again.... what a bunch of crap!!!!!!

Overlord
06-27-2007, 11:28 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


So, who are you gonna root for when the Vikings move?

I think I will just lay down, assume the fetal position & finally die of depression.

Don't forget to vote your local representative out of office first.

If they move to LA, they'll be closer to me, so I'll still be cheering for them.
But I think the state should do what they need to in order to keep them in Minnesota.
It seems like all we hear out of politicians is "I want them to stay, but I'm not willing to do anything about it."
Way to step up.

sleepagent
06-27-2007, 11:56 PM
"Overlord" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


So, who are you gonna root for when the Vikings move?

I think I will just lay down, assume the fetal position & finally die of depression.

Don't forget to vote your local representative out of office first.

If they move to LA, they'll be closer to me, so I'll still be cheering for them.
But I think the state should do what they need to in order to keep them in Minnesota.
It seems like all we hear out of politicians is "I want them to stay, but I'm not willing to do anything about it."
Way to step up.




Florida could use another Pro sports team . . . the twelve million they have isn't enough!

singersp
06-28-2007, 06:07 AM
"Overlord" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


So, who are you gonna root for when the Vikings move?

I think I will just lay down, assume the fetal position & finally die of depression.


Don't forget to vote your local representative out of office first.



I live in Wisconsin so my vote has no impact on the Vikings stadium.

Blame the voters in MN who blindly vote the liberals in office, regardless of who they are.

Zeus
06-28-2007, 08:39 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Blame the voters in MN who blindly vote the liberals in office, regardless of who they are.

Pawlenty is a liberal?
Really?
That's news to me.

=Z=

singersp
06-28-2007, 08:46 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Blame the voters in MN who blindly vote the liberals in office, regardless of who they are.

Pawlenty is a liberal?
Really?
That's news to me.

=Z=


I'm talking about the liberal legislators, not the governor.

I was replying to the post about the local representatives.

But I knew that would drag the liberals out of the woodwork.

Purple Floyd
06-28-2007, 08:52 AM
This has to be the first time I have ever heard of someone blaming voters for voting in liberals because they are not willing to spend enough money. I am going to print that one out and frame it.

singersp
06-28-2007, 08:57 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


This has to be the first time I have ever heard of someone blaming voters for voting in liberals because they are not willing to spend enough money. I am going to print that one out and frame it.


Well the legislatures don't vote themselves in.
It's the voters who put them in office.

It's pretty simple, if you want a Vikings stadium, don't vote for candidates who are dead set against it.
;)

Billy Boy
06-28-2007, 09:00 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


This has to be the first time I have ever heard of someone blaming voters for voting in liberals because they are not willing to spend enough money. I am going to print that one out and frame it.


Well the legislatures don't vote themselves in.
It's the voters who put them in office.


I think his point is that stereotypically liberals spend (to some) very charitably and (to others) carelessly.

damien927
06-28-2007, 09:03 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Blame the voters in MN who blindly vote the liberals in office, regardless of who they are.

Pawlenty is a liberal?
Really?
That's news to me.

=Z=




I'm talking about the liberal legislators, not the governor.

I was replying to the post about the local representatives.

But I knew that would drag the liberals out of the woodwork.



If I am not mistaken.... isn't the running joke about liberals "tax and spend, tax and spend"?
and the conservatives want to do just that, conserve their money?
Please explain to me (Singer) how having less conservatives in office wouldn't help the state dish out more money.
Pawlenty himself (conservative) promised no new taxes, maybe he is just scared he may have to break that promise if he were to do what is right and provide SOMETHING to help get a new stadium and keep the Vikings and their business in MN.

NodakPaul
06-28-2007, 09:03 AM
"Billy" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


This has to be the first time I have ever heard of someone blaming voters for voting in liberals because they are not willing to spend enough money. I am going to print that one out and frame it.


Well the legislatures don't vote themselves in.
It's the voters who put them in office.


I think his point is that stereotypically liberals spend (to some) very charitably and (to others) carelessly.



Well damn, MN needs to vote some more liberals into office then. ;)

Purple Floyd
06-28-2007, 09:04 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


This has to be the first time I have ever heard of someone blaming voters for voting in liberals because they are not willing to spend enough money. I am going to print that one out and frame it.


Well the legislatures don't vote themselves in.
It's the voters who put them in office.

It's pretty simple, if you want a Vikings stadium, don't vote for candidates who are dead set against it.
;)


Maybe you could sweeten the deal by putting a homeless shelter in the basement ;)

Zeus
06-28-2007, 09:04 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Blame the voters in MN who blindly vote the liberals in office, regardless of who they are.

Pawlenty is a liberal?
Really?
That's news to me.


I'm talking about the liberal legislators, not the governor.

I was replying to the post about the local representatives.

But I knew that would drag the liberals out of the woodwork.


I was dragged out of the woodwork to point out the incredible stupidity of your remark.
Nothing more.

=Z=

Prophet
06-28-2007, 09:05 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Blame the voters in MN who blindly vote the liberals in office, regardless of who they are.

Pawlenty is a liberal?
Really?
That's news to me.


I'm talking about the liberal legislators, not the governor.

I was replying to the post about the local representatives.

But I knew that would drag the liberals out of the woodwork.


I was dragged out of the woodwork to point out the incredible stupidity of your remark.
Nothing more.

=Z=


I looked up politically correct on wikipedia and saw a picture of Z.

Zeus
06-28-2007, 09:08 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Billy" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


This has to be the first time I have ever heard of someone blaming voters for voting in liberals because they are not willing to spend enough money. I am going to print that one out and frame it.


Well the legislatures don't vote themselves in.
It's the voters who put them in office.


I think his point is that stereotypically liberals spend (to some) very charitably and (to others) carelessly.



Well damn, MN needs to vote some more liberals into office then. ;)


Well, damn!
North Dakota needs people who aren't so quick to hit the POST button when it appears the first one didn't work!

=Z=

singersp
06-28-2007, 09:08 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Blame the voters in MN who blindly vote the liberals in office, regardless of who they are.

Pawlenty is a liberal?
Really?
That's news to me.


I'm talking about the liberal legislators, not the governor.

I was replying to the post about the local representatives.

But I knew that would drag the liberals out of the woodwork.


I was dragged out of the woodwork to point out the incredible stupidity of your remark.
Nothing more.

=Z=


Spoken like a "true" liberal.

Purple Floyd
06-28-2007, 09:13 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Blame the voters in MN who blindly vote the liberals in office, regardless of who they are.

Pawlenty is a liberal?
Really?
That's news to me.


I'm talking about the liberal legislators, not the governor.

I was replying to the post about the local representatives.

But I knew that would drag the liberals out of the woodwork.


I was dragged out of the woodwork to point out the incredible stupidity of your remark.
Nothing more.

=Z=


Spoken like a "true" liberal.


So does that indicate that you are a conservative, the same people who preach no new taxes and reducing the footprint of government?

Zeus
06-28-2007, 09:14 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Spoken like a "true" liberal.


I know you think you're being funny - but you're not.
Your displaying ignorance for all to see.
You really should stick to posting things that others have written.

=Z=

Billy Boy
06-28-2007, 09:18 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


This has to be the first time I have ever heard of someone blaming voters for voting in liberals because they are not willing to spend enough money. I am going to print that one out and frame it.


Well the legislatures don't vote themselves in.
It's the voters who put them in office.

It's pretty simple, if you want a Vikings stadium, don't vote for candidates who are dead set against it.
;)


Maybe you could sweeten the deal by putting a homeless shelter in the basement ;)


LOL, Uffda you sound exactly like my girlfriends dad.

Thats pretty damn funny though.
Might as well call it Rainbow Stadium too.

NodakPaul
06-28-2007, 10:27 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Billy" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


This has to be the first time I have ever heard of someone blaming voters for voting in liberals because they are not willing to spend enough money. I am going to print that one out and frame it.


Well the legislatures don't vote themselves in.
It's the voters who put them in office.


I think his point is that stereotypically liberals spend (to some) very charitably and (to others) carelessly.



Well gol 'darnit, MN needs to vote some more liberals into office then. ;)


Well, gol 'darnit!
North Dakota needs people who aren't so quick to hit the POST button when it appears the first one didn't work!

=Z=


LOL.
Nope, not the case.
I am as patient as they come. ;)

PP.O has had a bug in it for the past couple of weeks where it double (or sometimes triple) posts even though the user only hits POST once.
The weird part is that if you do hit post a second time, it catches it and gives you an error message...

Zeus
06-28-2007, 11:30 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


PP.O has had a bug in it for the past couple of weeks where it double (or sometimes triple) posts even though the user only hits POST once.
The weird part is that if you do hit post a second time, it catches it and gives you an error message...


Of all of the current issues PPO is having, that's one I haven't seen.
In my business (QA) we call that problem BKAB.

=Z=

NodakPaul
06-28-2007, 12:22 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


PP.O has had a bug in it for the past couple of weeks where it double (or sometimes triple) posts even though the user only hits POST once.
The weird part is that if you do hit post a second time, it catches it and gives you an error message...


Of all of the current issues PPO is having, that's one I haven't seen.
In my business (QA) we call that problem BKAB.

=Z=


You haven't noticed the large number of double posts lately.
It actually has happened to many posters, and was brought up in the help forum a couple of times.
(once by me, and I believe once by Marrdro). And yes, I know what a PEBKAB issue is. ;D Luckily I also know what it means for a web application to be idempotent, and PP.O is idempotent in terms of hitting the post button twice.
The error itself appears to manifest on the server side, and tends to correspond to periods of high response time.

Webby
06-28-2007, 12:25 PM
Well, I am taking down PPO this weekend to get it off this platform.
Be down a few hours.
yeeehaaa.
Friday night I suppose.
Go drink or something!

Marrdro
06-28-2007, 12:29 PM
"Webby" wrote:


Well, I am taking down PPO this weekend to get it off this platform.
Be down a few hours.
yeeehaaa.

Friday night I suppose.

Go drink or something!

Thats it.
I'm gonna sit there and keep trying to log in until you get it up and running again. (Kidding)

Just don't do it during a weekday, during working hours.
I would have to work then.
;D

NodakPaul
06-28-2007, 12:44 PM
"Webby" wrote:


Well, I am taking down PPO this weekend to get it off this platform.
Be down a few hours.
yeeehaaa.
Friday night I suppose.
Go drink or something!


OK, I will plan on tying one on this weekend.
If my wife asks why, I will tell her that Webby told me to... ;D

Zeus
06-28-2007, 12:57 PM
"Webby" wrote:


Well, I am taking down PPO this weekend to get it off this platform.
Be down a few hours.
yeeehaaa.

Friday night I suppose.

Go drink or something!


Whoohooo!
License to drink from Webby!
Yeeee-haw!

=Z=

Zeus
06-28-2007, 12:59 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


PP.O has had a bug in it for the past couple of weeks where it double (or sometimes triple) posts even though the user only hits POST once.
The weird part is that if you do hit post a second time, it catches it and gives you an error message...


Of all of the current issues PPO is having, that's one I haven't seen.
In my business (QA) we call that problem BKAB.


You haven't noticed the large number of double posts lately.
It actually has happened to many posters, and was brought up in the help forum a couple of times.
(once by me, and I believe once by Marrdro). And yes, I know what a PEBKAB issue is. ;D Luckily I also know what it means for a web application to be idempotent, and PP.O is idempotent in terms of hitting the post button twice.
The error itself appears to manifest on the server side, and tends to correspond to periods of high response time.


Perhaps I should have said "...one which has not happened to me..." rather than one I haven't seen.
Oh yeah, I'm seeing lots of double/triple posts - but (generally) those have seemed to have been from newer members and management types like Marr.

=Z=

NodakPaul
06-28-2007, 01:03 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


PP.O has had a bug in it for the past couple of weeks where it double (or sometimes triple) posts even though the user only hits POST once.
The weird part is that if you do hit post a second time, it catches it and gives you an error message...


Of all of the current issues PPO is having, that's one I haven't seen.
In my business (QA) we call that problem BKAB.


You haven't noticed the large number of double posts lately.
It actually has happened to many posters, and was brought up in the help forum a couple of times.
(once by me, and I believe once by Marrdro). And yes, I know what a PEBKAB issue is. ;D Luckily I also know what it means for a web application to be idempotent, and PP.O is idempotent in terms of hitting the post button twice.
The error itself appears to manifest on the server side, and tends to correspond to periods of high response time.


Perhaps I should have said "...one which has not happened to me..." rather than one I haven't seen.
Oh yeah, I'm seeing lots of double/triple posts - but (generally) those have seemed to have been from newer members and management types like Marr.

=Z=


LMAO.
Nice dig on Marrdro. ;D

Marrdro
06-28-2007, 01:04 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


PP.O has had a bug in it for the past couple of weeks where it double (or sometimes triple) posts even though the user only hits POST once.
The weird part is that if you do hit post a second time, it catches it and gives you an error message...


Of all of the current issues PPO is having, that's one I haven't seen.
In my business (QA) we call that problem BKAB.


You haven't noticed the large number of double posts lately.
It actually has happened to many posters, and was brought up in the help forum a couple of times.
(once by me, and I believe once by Marrdro). And yes, I know what a PEBKAB issue is. ;D Luckily I also know what it means for a web application to be idempotent, and PP.O is idempotent in terms of hitting the post button twice.
The error itself appears to manifest on the server side, and tends to correspond to periods of high response time.


Perhaps I should have said "...one which has not happened to me..." rather than one I haven't seen.
Oh yeah, I'm seeing lots of double/triple posts - but (generally) those have seemed to have been from newer members and management types like Marr.

=Z=

Don't drag me into this.
I know how to double check every post and try to fix my mistakes before you read them.

Sometimes you are faster than I am and get there before I can edit or use the remove button
;D

Zeus
06-28-2007, 01:07 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


PP.O has had a bug in it for the past couple of weeks where it double (or sometimes triple) posts even though the user only hits POST once.
The weird part is that if you do hit post a second time, it catches it and gives you an error message...


Of all of the current issues PPO is having, that's one I haven't seen.
In my business (QA) we call that problem BKAB.


You haven't noticed the large number of double posts lately.
It actually has happened to many posters, and was brought up in the help forum a couple of times.
(once by me, and I believe once by Marrdro). And yes, I know what a PEBKAB issue is. ;D Luckily I also know what it means for a web application to be idempotent, and PP.O is idempotent in terms of hitting the post button twice.
The error itself appears to manifest on the server side, and tends to correspond to periods of high response time.


Perhaps I should have said "...one which has not happened to me..." rather than one I haven't seen.
Oh yeah, I'm seeing lots of double/triple posts - but (generally) those have seemed to have been from newer members and management types like Marr.


Don't drag me into this.
I know how to double check every post and try to fix my mistakes before you read them.

Sometimes you are faster than I am and get there before I can edit or use the remove button
;D


Dragging folks into things that they don't want to be into is half the fun.

=Z=

singersp
06-28-2007, 08:35 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




Blame the voters in MN who blindly vote the liberals in office, regardless of who they are.

Pawlenty is a liberal?
Really?
That's news to me.


I'm talking about the liberal legislators, not the governor.

I was replying to the post about the local representatives.

But I knew that would drag the liberals out of the woodwork.


I was dragged out of the woodwork to point out the incredible stupidity of your remark.
Nothing more.

=Z=


Spoken like a "true" liberal.


So does that indicate that you are a conservative, the same people who preach no new taxes and reducing the footprint of government?


Not at all. I am non-partisan, meaning unlike a lot of people out there, I don't know how I'm going to vote 5 years from now. I might vote Democratic, Republican or Independant. I don't ever vote for a candidate strictly because he/she belongs to a certain political party. I like to know how the candidate stands on certain issues & then vote accordingly.

My dads a Republican. I know how he is going to vote 5 years from now & he doesn't even know who the candidate will be yet. To me that's crazy.

There are Conservative Republicans & Conservative Democrats. There are Liberal Republicans & Liberal Democrats.

There's a time to be conservative & a time to spend. How it is spent & where the money is appropriated is always what is in question.

If your spending money on a program to aid a family with 4 children & the mom & dad refuse to work because they can get "free money" instead, perhaps even a new home & they choose to have another kid to get even more money or give it to illlegal immigrants who snuck across the border, to me that's just wrong.

There is also a time for taxation.

IMO, most people here are against raising taxes, but if it were an increased tax against something like cigarettes, most would be in favor for it because it doesn't affect them.

If it were an increased tax on alcohol, a lot of those same people would be dead set against it.

In the matter of a new stadium, the time for a tax to help fund a stadium was last year. The longer they wait, the more it's going to cost them.

The price jumped from I believe 800 million last year to 950 million this year. Next year it's projected to hit 1 billion. That's a $200 million in two years. Would they have collected $200 million in a tax height over those 2 years? IMO, no. So the longer they wait, the "behinder" they get & the more it's going to cost them in the long run.

Just because my political views differ from someone elses, doesn't mean I'm ignorant.

singersp
06-28-2007, 09:10 PM
"Zeus" wrote:



I know you think you're being funny - but you're not.
Your displaying ignorance for all to see.
You really should stick to posting things that others have written.

=Z=


Just because my political views differ from yours, doesn’t mean I am ignorant. My opinions here are just as important as yours are. If mine or anyone elses differ from yours, that doesn’t mean you are right & I or they are wrong. It simply means we disagree.

I will continue to post my opinions on how I see fit & not just stick to simply posting only articles like you suggest, simply because that’s what you prefer.

There are a lot of people here who value my opinion here, whether they agree with me or not. I may not always be right, but I’m damn sure not always wrong like you are implying.

If you think I have no value to this community other than just posting articles, by all means, come out & say it.

COJOMAY
06-28-2007, 09:15 PM
It seems to me that when the Metrodome was first built it was financed by a sales tax on hotel rooms, restaurant food and drinks in the greater metro area because they felt it would attract more people to the area thereby increasing the "bottom line" of those businesses while generating lots of tax money. Am I wrong on my memory?

singersp
06-28-2007, 09:29 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


It seems to me that when the Metrodome was first built it was financed by a sales tax on hotel rooms, restaurant food and drinks in the greater metro area because they felt it would attract more people to the area thereby increasing the "bottom line" of those businesses while generating lots of tax money. Am I wrong on my memory?


I recall paying a higher tax on both hotels & alcohol in Hennepin County back in the late 80's or early 90's which I was told went towards the stadium fund.

I also recall, you weren't able to buy alcohol on a particular day (I'm thinking it was Thursday) either all day or after a certain time, but I can't remember the reasoning behind it.