The Unknown Poster

So they’d want 3000-4000 fans. A knew 5000 seat arena is always good news as it would be used for many things.

This little show blew up lol

Would NOT be owned by the Jets. Would play at UofM until new 5000 seat arena was built.

Much appreciated! We do occasionally have all ages shows. I’ll keep you posted!

Thank you for the kind words. What a hectic night (and couple of weeks). Great experience working with the film crew and don was great to work with too. I knew we were in for something when Kenny asked me to procure a cake and 15 pies! Lol. Thank you so much for coming!

Assuming Vesa reports it’s good news. He won’t get better used this way on the jets but getting too minutes for the moose will be good for him. Jets can recall someone or keep a lower roster. They still have petan. Probably wait til back on the road to recall an extra forward.

Interesting coincidences detailed here

It’s not about drawing people downtown. Neither the mall nor the arena were draws. You have to get people working and living downtown and it’s undergone significant growth on both fronts and continues to do so.

Ice-T wasn’t an original cast member. The only original still on SVU is Hargitay I believe.

Again, you're ignoring the out and out lies from the "no" side and the chicken little panic that isnt warranted. UIt comes down to people uneducated about it or they get it but they dont care as long as it doesnt cost them any more minutes in traffic. And that last point is perfectly rational. But its where the two sides disagree. Also, in regards to downtown and portage place, as Jcon stated, no one single thing would fix downtown. Everyone said the same thing about the arena and it didnt.

Also keep in mind that Portage Place was to have two buildings on site for residential. Never happened. In regards to the traffic study, I have no idea if its true but I tend to doubt they are maliciously lying. But its a good example of what I noted earlier about bias. Those who were always in favour say "look the study shows minor impact to drivers". The ones who were always "no" say "I dont believe it." I "commute" a short way and sometimes Im home in 5 minutes, sometimes 25 minutes.

So none. lol

Which study have you seen to come up with those numbers?

I notice they often focus on where the school zone begins/ends, hoping to catch those drivers in the midst of slowing down (or speeding up), where there is often very few children (and certainly not in the road).

I suspect the Jets do very well this game.

thats weird. Why don’t they give Kulikov a chance? I hear he’s great.

Yes, I was wholly supportive of the police using the laws already in place in terms of distracted driving. If they saw someone on their phone and they were all over the road, they could pull them over and ticket them. They didnt need a new law. Now, they can argue they made it specific for the purpose of increased fines but I wonder if they made it specific because they could create special projects to target usage regardless of evidence pertaining to safe or unsafe driving and generate a lot of revenue. FOr example before the law, no cop ever write a ticket because he saw someone look at their phone at a red light. Now they run special projects planting cops on blvds, in busses, in over-passes etc, looking specifically for the magic cell phone, NOT for unsafe driving.

I see that perspective about the Yes people, I just dont understand why people feel that way. I think its more to do with dug-in opinions creating a bias (for both sides). The thing to me, when looking at the Yes side....the yes side seems generally more educated about the finer points. A lot of No people are "fix my roads, dont spend money, streets will run red with blood of dead pedestrians". I honestly think most of the concerns are easily answered and thats why the yes side comes across perhaps arrogant because they think they have all the answers. For the most part they do.

Yeah my jeep reads my messages. But if Im stopped for an extended period Ill glance down at my phone to see if a non-text message has appeared. Its especially true when Im concerned about a potential emergency (elderly family, sick family etc). But looking at my phone in the cup holder is no different then looking at my radio screen. Im probably far more distracted cycling through Sirius channels or looking at the navigation

I cant foresee any scenario where he gets that other than a trade to a team with a ton of cap space and little serious prospects for cup contention who want to blow their wad on one talented player. Arizona maybe? lol Maurice can be stubborn and wont change our Little and Roslo until such time as he decides Roslo has earned it. I dont see it being a scenario where he thinks Little plays himself down or the chemistry thing. But it will happen eventually. Loyalty is great but when they got Stastny, they had no problem moving Little down. And it was great. So the idea should be to find a 2C that can make that line better, allowing them to move Little down and thus make the 3/4 line better. Barring a blockbuster trade, which the Jets rarely make, the answer will have to come from within.

The crazy thing is, because this is a planet in a solar system and we lack the technology to do much about it, eventually they will be right. Of course, it could be an ice free arctic in the year 5 million, I dont know. But since the planet has gone through ice free and snow ball cycles in it's history that had nothing to do with humans, Im not even sure what the sky is falling stuff is all about. Like, nothing we do, short of developing technology that can effect the sun, will stop the earth from going through its natural warming/cooling cycles. In short, be kind to the planet. Doomsday scenarios have always been wrong, as you have pointed out. So why is it right this time? PS: saw a report from a former Astronaut that denies human-caused climate change. Now, some of those astronauts are nuts but I think he's a real scientist.

Really? I find the opposite. Im really impressed with the vote open people, their organizing and the information they have brought forward. The no people seem very angry as if its a personal affront and generally spread complete falsehoods. If you compare Brent Bellamy to Tom Brodbeck, the former is far more professional and honest. Broadbeck's gimmick this week is to beat back the "if we had a vote on everything we have, they'd never have happened" by claiming there was little opposition to things like the MTS Centre and Floodway. Thats simply not true. Im surprised he's on the no side since the money that will be spent regardless is going to be significant. But regardless, I wouldn't vote on a major issue impacting my community simply because I didn't like someone who supported one side. The vote is on the issue, not the people. Ill be voting open. I was surprised when my mom told me last night that she would vote open as well, but she told me stories of crossing before the barricades and what a pain it was when they went in. I think people had their minds made up on day one and nothing was going to change it either way. It will be a no and then when they rip all the cement up for much needed repairs, the citizenry will whine about the expense of putting those barricades back in.

I think when the government pushes a program and says its all about safety and how much they want to reduce these infractions but everything point to their desire to generate income, its hard to accept. Just because it ALSO creates a safer scenario, to me, doesn't change that the real motivation is revenue generation. Its very similar to photo enforcement in that regard, especially in school zones where they specifically focus on "gotcha" rather than safety. Someone driving down the street texting, well yeah thats obviously unsafe. Someone stopped at a 15 minute train, in park, looking at their phone...thats not unsafe. So that sort of enforcement is designed to generate revenue because they know there is a captive audience of a large number of vehicles that they can catch people doing something for which they can write a ticket, but is not actually unsafe. There are many things people do in cars every day from the absurd to routine that dont get tickets. Everyone has navigation, satellite radios etc...things you play around with while actually driving. Looking at your phone at a train, drive thru or red light is not inherently unsafe. Personally, if Im at a red light and I have my phone in my hand checking a message or email and I look over and a WPS car is beside me and pulls me over, hey, I got caught. I dont know that I'd be very mad at them. The sting operations where we're paying a significant amount of money to dress up as homeless people to solicit charitable donations as part of a gotcha? Feels yucky to me. If you get caught by one of those pretend hobos, immediately press emergency on your phone, say you felt threatened by the approaching panhandler staring into your car and were calling the cops (you're allowed to use your phone for emergency calls). Im kidding, dont do that.

The thing that confuses me (and I certainly dont know anything about geo-politics) is how many people are saying "look you cant cause an international incident over one murder, you cant tick off the Saudi's or they will crush us". Why is the US so beholden to Saudi Arabia? Is Saudi Arabia not beholden to the US?