See individual bills for more.
[by Anonymous Citizen on July 24, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 1325 (Sex Offender Provisions) anion intercepts architectures plagued Danubian,bunches . Reply New Comment View Thread
[by Anonymous Citizen on July 24, 2008] about an amendment for 2005 Senate Bill 2273 (Omnibus Public Safety Policy and Funding Bill) mighty?teenage discriminant,steelers?fortifications refining leapfrog contributes operable Reply New Comment View Thread
[by Anonymous Citizen on July 23, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 218 (Tsunami Relief Tax Deduction Acceleration) tailor adherent chasing!Taylorizes obsolete . Reply New Comment View Thread
[by Anonymous Citizen on July 19, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 1325 (Sex Offender Provisions) legislatures vaunted finals eclectic blitzes whispered wrist jog Reply New Comment View Thread
[by Anonymous Citizen on July 19, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) protuberant lone attractiveness crumble anvils Xenia - Tons of interesdting stuff!!! Reply New Comment View Thread
[by Anonymous Citizen on July 19, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 1325 (Sex Offender Provisions) impending:bell exhales Harbin.evident?hailstorm madness Reply New Comment View Thread
[by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) dwindling drops carbonizers Evangeline Injuns accept cowardice Reply New Comment View Thread
[by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 218 (Tsunami Relief Tax Deduction Acceleration) emaciate blanketing cowlick Ottomanize hypocrite ... Reply New Comment View Thread
tip [by Anonymous Citizen on July 17, 2008] about an amendment for 2005 Senate Bill 2273 (Omnibus Public Safety Policy and Funding Bill) acquiesces profiteer beetles?worthwhile captured bridesmaid evidencing Kiev! Reply New Comment View Thread
Oh god.... [by Anonymous Citizen on June 3, 2008] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) Shut up with that already. I was abused for 7 years! I choose not to dwell on it forever, or for my "life sentence", and further choose not to "milk" being a victim in the public's eye. Think its long overdue the "victims" take a lesson.... Reply New Comment View Thread
Nazi's [by Anonymous Citizen on April 27, 2008] about 2005 Special Session 1 Senate Bill 55 ("Power Hour" Prohibition Repeal) Bunch of Nazi's stealing the common mans rights! Reply New Comment View Thread
HAPPY To Pay More... [by sanityspeaks on April 2, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 1 (Senate Bonding Bill) What ever happened to the "Happy To Pay More" yard signs? I would be happy to have these liberal nut balls just pay more and leave the remaining sane alone. Go back and look at what WE are BUYING. INSANE! Let's buy some arts and help the Teachers Union while we are at it. Let's have it all! Reply New Comment View Thread
Sex Offender [by Anonymous Citizen on March 18, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 1325 (Sex Offender Provisions) You should have zero rights. You should be labelled a sex offender for as long as your victim suffers from your thoughtless actions. As a victim, I can tell you that I was victimized 45 years ago. My perp died of a massive stroke when I was 7. To this day I have to live with my victimization. Own your actions, and live with the consequenses. Reply New Comment View Thread
louie679 [by Anonymous Citizen on March 17, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) doesn't everyone have the choice not to work in the place that allows smoking and to apply at a smoke free bar or cafe? I own a bar and my employees all smoke we have to leave the bar and go outside with the customers FREEDOM ha ha Reply New Comment View Thread
Unbelievable [by Anonymous Citizen on February 29, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 1325 (Sex Offender Provisions) So we have two 'stories' on this topic from people who had sex with minors when they were older than 18. One story doesn't give ANY details about the girls age, and the other story says that she was 13 and a half. THIRTEEN YEARS OLD! Buddy (or gal, or whatever), if you are 18 years old and you are having SEX with THIRTEEN YEAR OLDS, or 14 year olds, or 15 or 16 year olds for that matter, you should be thrown in the slammer and throw away the key. End of story. Reply New Comment View Thread
contact? 4got somehting [by Anonymous Citizen on February 27, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 1325 (Sex Offender Provisions) my email is murphy33@live.com Reply New Comment View Thread
contact? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 27, 2008] about 2005 Senate Bill 1325 (Sex Offender Provisions) my name is krystle my fiance is in prison serving 5more yrs for a similiar situation if u wiuld be so kind as to enlighten me on how u were able to live with u legally id appreciate it i live in indiana and my fiance has nowhere to go when he gets out and financially i cant afford to house him and myself separetly til he would be able to get on his feet what options do i have and how do i go bout them? Reply New Comment View Thread
Buy that kid a drink! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008] about 2005 Special Session 1 Senate Bill 55 ("Power Hour" Prohibition Repeal) Thats all. :-) Reply New Comment View Thread
Wrong [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008] about 2005 Special Session 1 Senate Bill 55 ("Power Hour" Prohibition Repeal) We wait for 21 years to become legal and it is out right to be able to drink on that day starting at 12:01 am. I was born at that time so that is really wrong. They should have no right to take that oppturnity away from us. We can die for our country at 18 but can't drink until 8am on our birthday. I saw congress needs to take a closer look at this. You are wrong. Why dont you look into putting an end to the war now drinking at midnight. Kat Reply New Comment View Thread
EQUAL or LEGAL [by Anonymous Citizen on November 29, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 2119 (PERA Disability Benefits) Equality seems to be the byword and backlash of modern politically correct thinking.But is it really or is it a legal lever to discriminate against people.Spending I dare say millions to educate the educated in adopting plans and programs to support the Clinton era of irresponsibility.TAX PAYER DOLLARS WOULD BE BETTER SPENT HELPING THE POOR THROUGH ORGANIZATIONS ALREADY IN PLACE SHARING CARING HANDS CATHOLIC CHARITIES and the like. Instead MN. is like a DOG CHASING ITS OWN TALE. Reply New Comment View Thread
To Barbara: Re: Mr. Carter [by Anonymous Citizen on August 23, 2007] about an amendment for 2005 Senate Bill 2273 (Omnibus Public Safety Policy and Funding Bill) I hope you went to Bingo to keep an eye on him. I think we all need to take responsibility for these things. If I lived near my "ex-friend" I would be stalking him to try to make sure he didn't do it again. Thank you for bringing these kinds of things to people's attention. Reply New Comment View Thread
To Michael 777 re: comment to Barbara [by Anonymous Citizen on August 23, 2007] about an amendment for 2005 Senate Bill 2273 (Omnibus Public Safety Policy and Funding Bill) Dear Michael, Oh really?! Hmmm.... Then why do I have an ex-friend that molested three boys while helping his mother in a child care setting and although his records appear in the Minnesota Criminal History search (public record: DANIEL JAY FUHRMAN 06/03/1970, if you care to check), he served 36 months in prison and has since molested again last fall (kids in his neighborhood)-no records of this appears yet--anywhere that I can find (I am told he is in a "halfway house"), he is NOT A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER ANYWHERE! The victims were definitely minors: 9-11 years in age (it is not an 18 year old dating a 14 year old scenario). I have personal knowledge of this because until he committed these crimes he had been my friend since college and some of our mutual friends are still spend time with him on a regular basis (God only knows why!) Please explain to me why he is not in the National Sex Offender data base or anywhere in Minnesota records as a sex offender. Reply New Comment View Thread
Richard Carter [by Anonymous Citizen on July 31, 2007] about an amendment for 2005 Senate Bill 2273 (Omnibus Public Safety Policy and Funding Bill) Mr. Carter was arrested 7/28/07. At this time he is sitting in Washington Co. jail. His charges...CSC (criminal sexual conduct) Just thought you'd like to know. Reply New Comment View Thread
MIN WAGE [by Anonymous Citizen on July 20, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 3 (Minimum Wage Increase) SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE WAS BORN WITH A GOLDEN SPOON UP THEIR HINDEND GET YOUR FACTS STRIGHT FRIST. SOUNDS LIKE YOUR THE ONE WITH NO EDUCATION. Reply New Comment View Thread
twins have rights [by Anonymous Citizen on June 13, 2007] about 2005 House Bill 130 (Twins and Triplets in the Same Classroom) Twins were born into this world together, and should have the right to be in the same classroom together if they so desire.Separation of twins should be left soley up to their parents or guardians. It is not the job of school administratos to decide what is best for someone elses child that they barely know and when they have no knowlege of how to raise twins. Reply New Comment View Thread
re whatever [by Anonymous Citizen on June 6, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) no makes them take and keep those jobs Reply New Comment View Thread
Re: SMOKERS BARS [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) There IS a "smoker's bar". It's called "your home". Go kill yourself and your innocent children with cigarettes over there. But leave your "death sticks" out of public places. FACT: SECOND-HAND SMOKE KILLS OTHER PEOPLE. Reply New Comment View Thread
non smoking bars [by Anonymous Citizen on June 4, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) have non smoking bars in large city which you are from might work. but what about all the small towns that make up a large percentage of the bars in this state this bill will see alot of small town bar closing there doors Reply New Comment View Thread
[by Anonymous Citizen on June 3, 2007] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) unquestionably repast!landmark sarcasm reflective,... Thanks!!! Reply New Comment View Thread
SMOKERS BARS [by Anonymous Citizen on June 2, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) WHY DON,T YOU JUST LET US SMOKERS HAVE SMOKER BARS AND YOU PEOPLE THAT ARE AFRAID OF YOUR OWN SHADOW YOUR NON-SMOKING BARS Reply New Comment View Thread
Intentionally Dishonest! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 26, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) I can't believe all the pro-smoking tobacco lobbyists on here intentionally spreading lies to endanger peoples' health, all for the almighty buck! Smoking in closed establishments is not a freedom of choice issue. Of course you all know that, but you intentionally misrepresent the issue for monetary gain! Freedom of choice ends when it violates the liberties of others. It's the most basic principle in our constitution. You don't have the freedom of choice to go out and shoot someone just because you want to. And by that same token, you don't have the freedom to go out and blow your filthy, poisonous, cancerous smoke in their faces either. Practice the tiniest grain of self-restraint, and stop yourself from killing others with your filthy habit. Reply New Comment View Thread
smoke gets in your eyes [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) i will make this short no one makes you sit in bar with smokers YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO LEAVE!and if you don,t leave then you made the choice to be in the bar with smokers Reply New Comment View Thread
smokers choice [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) it,s the right of every person make there own choices,but don,t think thats true anymore one wants something stop well open your wallets and it will happen what ever happened too freedom of choice? Reply New Comment View Thread
Sick! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 14, 2007] about an amendment for 2005 Senate Bill 2273 (Omnibus Public Safety Policy and Funding Bill) It is amazing what someone like that can do not only to a small child but to that childs mother as well. The rage a mother feels knowing that someone could do that to someones baby, makes her want that monster to die a slow painful death for an eternity. I swear I dont know what I would do if that ever happen to one of my children, I believe that is the worst crime known to man. Reply New Comment View Thread
Richard Carter Jr [by Anonymous Citizen on May 14, 2007] about an amendment for 2005 Senate Bill 2273 (Omnibus Public Safety Policy and Funding Bill) Mr Carter is now an officer with the Sons of the American Legion Post 225 in Forest Lake, MN.. He will be running a bingo tent for the 4th of July. It will bring him in contact with small children. Reply New Comment View Thread
staying home? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 12, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Maybe you should ask the people of New York or California if the bars or anything else are going broke? Don't think so Reply New Comment View Thread
Stadium [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2007] about 2005 House Bill 2480 (Twins Baseball Stadium) We are wondering how many acreas you would need to build a baseball park in southern Minnesota 100 miles from the Cities. We have land for sale and we have about 65 acreas. I know that you would probably need about 100 acreas. Please take this into consideration,and we would be looking forward to hearing from you on this matter. bepeter1954@yahoo.com Reply New Comment View Thread
Pohland $pdnd$ $6 Mill on Jewelry Biz & Taxpayers Buy His Stadium [by Anonymous Citizen on May 5, 2007] about 2005 House Bill 2505 (Renaming the TwinsBaseball Team the "Hennepin County Twins") This is indeed taxation without representation. Carl "Polecat" Pohlad finds $6 million to buy out Hudson Jewelers. And we taxpayers have to pay for his new Minnesota Twins Stadium! There should have been a special taxpayer ballot. If there were, the new stadium would have been defeated because 75 percent of the voters DON'T want it! The county commissioners should be investigated. However government is so corrupt that this may not happen. This calls for a revolt by the taxpayers. I refuse to spend any tax monies from now on for anything goods or services other than what I essentially need. That's the only immediate revolt I have. Reply New Comment View Thread
What?! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 27, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) So by that logic, if I want to go into a bunch of bars and restaurants and spray rat poison around at people, that's OK because it's my right. And people shouldn't have a thing to say about it, because they are in the restaurant because they CHOOSE to be. They don't have to be in that restaurant when I'm spraying rat poison around if they don't want to. See how ridiculous that sounds?? I think smokers need to wake up to the fact that they have an unhealthy habit that is killing other people. Harming other peoples' health is NOT YOUR RIGHT. Reply New Comment View Thread
brush up on the bill of rights [by Anonymous Citizen on April 23, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) i am not a special intrest group my name is abe thornton, i live and work in cottage grove. there is no reason that senate bill 404 and house bill 405,fyi. the smoking ban bills, sould even be in debate in legislation. it is your right not to smoke it is also your right to choose where you work, eat, and drink. no one is holding a gun to your head making you do these things in a smoky enviernment. YOU CHOOSE TO!!! Reply New Comment View Thread
Regulations [by Anonymous Citizen on April 13, 2007] about 2005 House Bill 2336 (Hair Transplant Regulations) I think all surgery should be regulated to some degree in the interest of public safety. But as cosmetic (elective) surgery has become more accepted/popular the incidents of unqualified Doctor entering the field and doing harm is greater.This is especially true of hair transplantation. Alas it is the only field that has absolutely no accountability what so ever. Governmental intervention in this case is warranted (unfortunately). Reply New Comment View Thread
re: to all non smokers [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Previous poster wrote: "Also, I can't wait to hear you all moaning about your taxes going up because not enough money is being generated from cigarette sales anymore! How about a bill to force cigarette manufacturers to make a safer product." First, there is a safer product. It's called chewing gum. Or nicotine gum. Take your pick. Yes, I understand that using either of these products requires a little self control, and people who are addicted to smoking have zero self control. Tough. Second, non-smokers may miss the tax revenue generated by cigarette sales, but we will certainly not miss the billions of dollars of health costs and insurance costs caused by smokers, not to mention there immeasurable harm inflicted on other innocent people with their filthy habit. A message to smokers. If you want to kill yourself, that's really stupid, but go ahead. Don't kill everybody else in the process. Reply New Comment View Thread
Joint Custody [by Anonymous Citizen on March 31, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 1408 (Joint Custody of Children) Did you ever consider investigating this before you made your decision? Is this really the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD? Or is it a way to prevent child support. PLEASE FIND OUT WHAT THE CHILDREN WHO LIVED WITH THIS THANK OF IT. Reply New Comment View Thread
to all non smokers [by Anonymous Citizen on March 30, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) As long as the government allows the sale of and profits from the taxes of a highly addictive and dangerous product they should allow the pour slobs who have become addited to smoke with at least some form of shelter and comfort. Some of us can not quite smoking unless we are confined and sedated which is not practical. Also, I can't wait to hear you all moaning about your taxes going up because not enough money is being generated from cigarette sales anymore! How about a bill to force cigarette manufacturers to make a safer product. Reply New Comment View Thread
Lose 30% of income and pay your bills [by Anonymous Citizen on March 27, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) A bar loses 30% of its income with a smoking ban. The state will lose 30% in tax revenue from liquor and tobacco tax. 30% of bars will close. 30% of workers will lose their jobs. 30% of fundraisers and charitable contributions will stop. 30% of my customers will be at the casino smoke and gamble and accomplish spending 30% more they don't have. 30% will cross the border and smoke in wisconsin. Let me remove 30% of your legislative budget and it would bankrupt the state or 30% of your income and you would lose your house. The ban will take 30% of my freedom and next it will be guns and privacy and womens rights. Stay out of my business. Waste your time on global warming, meth addiction, and education. The ban is like the invention of smoking it seemed like a good idea at the time. Reply New Comment View Thread
Re: Freedom [by Anonymous Citizen on March 23, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Yes, people in bars are "adults", and are "free to make their own choices". But this issue is far too obvious to be improperly labeled as a 'freedom of choice' issue. EVERYONE understands the second hand smoke is harmful to your health. Everyone. Anyone who says different is being dishonest. So it doesn't really have anything to do with freedom of choice. It has much more to do with limiting rights of smokers, when those rights infringe upon others' health. Put it this way, if someone claimed they were going to go into bars and shoot 1 out of every 100 people, you would object to that. It would have no bearing that the people are in the bar of their own "free will". They have a RIGHT to be free from getting shot in the bars. And people have a RIGHT to not inhale cancer fumes from careless people who can't control their negative urges. Reply New Comment View Thread
Concerned [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2007] about 2005 House Bill 2210 (Farm Seed Provisions) The term is called brown bagging and is the primary reason for seed companies to "NOT" invest in more seed research. Wheat varieties have gone stagnent because there is no money in trying to create a variety that will be kept in a bin and reused. Farmers need seed companies to continue funding research for improved yield and disease resistance - especially with the contiuation of Round-Up continous crops. Reply New Comment View Thread
Freedom [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Bill 404 is an insult to every private business owner in Mn. Liquor establishments are for people over 21, ADULTS!!!!!!! Supposedly old enough to make their own choices!!!!! People are such lemings. You jerks gladly take and spend the tax money from tocacco and squander it!!!! Why does government get to have it both ways? I wish someone would give me 72million dollars to write a bogus bill!!!!!! Reply New Comment View Thread
Here we go! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Alrighty a new bill, now will it be comprehensive or will "private" clubs be exempt? Ever seen a private Legion club? Casinos? ALL workers have the right to breathe clean air. The national VFW commander wants all VFW clubs to be smoke-free. Reply New Comment View Thread
greed [by Anonymous Citizen on January 22, 2007] about 2005 Senate Bill 554 ("Floating of Horses' Teeth") I just another way for the vets to drive up pricing an corner the market. There are more horses damaged by bad farriers that horse dentist. Triming and shoeing a horse must be to much work to try and corner that market. Shame on the goverment for closing the market and allowing the vets the ability to rip the people of minnesota off. Reply New Comment View Thread
Centrist Tim [by Anonymous Citizen on December 19, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) As a moderate democrat it warms my heart to see the Gov moving to the center and agreeing with the soon to be DFL majority. If the state-wide smoking ban is approved heck maybe on the fence Tim may sign it now even if it isn't watered down to not include those pour bars. Now let's get those live saving fire-safe cigs as the ONLY cigarettes sold in MN. Reply New Comment View Thread
Re: One will see... [by Anonymous Citizen on November 29, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Pawlenty winning the midterm election was a great thing for Minnesota. We can look forward to another term of balanced budget. Reply New Comment View Thread
One will see... [by Anonymous Citizen on November 27, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Yes the pro-tobacco lobby Pawlenty got in for another 4 years (barely). There went the VP nod from McCain. Now let's see if the Gov supports smoke-free workplaces for all in the next session. Or will he buckle to the "hospitality" industry and the pour bars? A watered down bill will not protect all workers and their rights to breathe clean air. Reply New Comment View Thread
Stepping stones to Independance [by Anonymous Citizen on November 7, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 216 (Ethanol Mandate Increase) Energy and economic independence starts by leveling the playing field with fossil fuel corporate giants. The energy playing field ceased to be level when alcohol was outlawed by the prohibitionists with the cumulative financial support of about $4.5Million from the Rockefellers back in the early 1900's. Up until then cars often substituted alcohol for gasoline when there wasn't a gas station on every corner of the country. Check out Brazil, they don't import oil. Mr. Ford was testing body panels for cars made from Industrial hemp before it was outlawed in 1937. Economic advantage is cumulative and has perpetuated a fossil fuel economy for about 80 years. Agricultural (alternative) energy makes sense on a number of fronts, distributed energy independence, doesn't fund terrorism, reduces the imbalance of national trade deficit, improves rural income, keeps money in Minnesota, improves the ecological balance of energy flow, leads to more jobs and economic development locally, funds more improvements in technology, helps to counter-balance the fundamentally flawed economic structure of subsidizing fossil fuels. The net result of increased energy costs is that a lot of really smart (insightful) people have good solutions right now and they will continue to find more solutions. The problem is that they don't always have the political, emotional, or economic power to counteract the momentum of the fossil fuel subsidized economy. Reply New Comment View Thread
Lower class whiner? [by Anonymous Citizen on November 7, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 3 (Minimum Wage Increase) I can't believe that the writer of the article "If you're worth it, you'll be paid it" is an American. He, or she, must be from another Country. I am suggesting that for several reasons. We don't have lower class workers in America. Our Constitution says that we are equal. Actually, the Constitution only says that we are created equal. But we don't have lower class people, only lower paid people. Those people are paid less due to what they do NOT know, which can be anything from doing a job that they happen to love, but doesn't pay well, to just plain not knowing how to present themselves. They may be victims of circumstance from making the wrong choices earlier in their life. After all, if a person has been guilty of a crime, he, or she, may not be considered trustworthy, which limits their employment opportunities. There are exceptions to that rule, though. If they committed a crime defrauding a business, or businesses, electronically, or by computer, they will often be hired at a high rate of pay to prevent others from following their example. Personally, I retired from a $25 an hour job 4½ years ago, only to find that age discrimination is rampant in Minnesota. My previous employment is also a deterrant, because no one wants to hire you because they expect you to get a better offer soon and leave. Meanwhile, I must survive on Social Security and my savings. The person writing the original article showed his own lack of class with their grammar. Reply New Comment View Thread
Re: Pawlenty enough! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 6, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) So Pawlenty "squandered" tobacco settlement money to FIX THE STATE BUDGET??!!! Way to go Gov!! I love that guy!! God knows, it would've been much better to blow all that cash putting out stupid public service ads that high school and college kids completely ignore anyway. (sarcasm intended) And actually, I'm a huge advocate of the smoking ban. I can't get enough of all the great fresh air in bars and restaurants. The smoking ban was great idea. But once again I am impressed by Pawlenty's priorities, and his ability to get the bloated Minnesota budget under control. Reply New Comment View Thread
Pawlenty enough! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 2, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) In 2003 Pawlenty squandered the $1.2 billion tobacco prevention trust fund to fix his annual state budget. This trust had been dedicated to tobacco prevention and a public health endowment. In 2005 Minnesota spent only 4% of the $554 million in tobacco-generated revenue from taxes and tobacco settlement payments on tobacco prevention. Reply New Comment View Thread
re: sacrafice [by Anonymous Citizen on October 25, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 13 (Stem Cell Research) It's spelled 'sacrifice'. With that astounding intellect, I'm not suprised you're taking the liberal position. Reply New Comment View Thread
sacrafice [by Anonymous Citizen on October 24, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 13 (Stem Cell Research) interesting for those who can sacrafice veterans in war but are not willing to make the even handed gesture in return for those who are injured (spinal,head) you can watch people die from a distance. meanwhile you live while the whole world dies. Reply New Comment View Thread
Ethanol COSTS [by Winfred30 on October 23, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 216 (Ethanol Mandate Increase) I believe NO more ethanol plants should be built. Have younot read the report concerning ethanol costs and BTU values as compared to fossil fuels. Also if ethanol is so great then why do all of the ethanol plants burn fossil fuels for their energy rather than their own product! They actually use more fossil energy than they produce as renewal energy! Reply New Comment View Thread
Casino Smoking! [by Anonymous Citizen on October 23, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Tribal casinos are the ninth largest employer in Minnesota (nearly 14,000). Only 22% of these jobs are held by American Indians. The second-hand smoke health hazard in these casinos is unsafe to all their employees. The tribal nations must work with the state of Minnesota to develop second-hand smoke policies. Other states with tribal casinos have done this. There is no safe second-hand smoke! Reply New Comment View Thread
Big Tobacco [by Anonymous Citizen on October 11, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) The big tobacco lobby is still at it with $3 million in contributions for this election. And our Senator Coleman and wannabe Senator Kennedy ranked in the top 10 for bucks from this lobby. As the ad says, "Mark Kennedy you should be ashamed." Reply New Comment View Thread
COMMERCE [by Anonymous Citizen on October 5, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) WITH THE POWERFUL INFLUENCE THE MINNESOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HAS ON SOME OF OUR POLITICIANS IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO GET A BILL PASSED THAT PROTECTS ALL WORKERS OF RESTAURANTS AND STAND ALONE POUR BARS FROM SECOND-HAND SMOKE. THEY ARE ADVOCATES FOR BIG TOBACCO IN THE COURTS. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE ENDORSED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. THERE IS NO SAFE SECOND-HAND SMOKE! LET'S GET THE STATEWIDE SMOKING BAN PASSED IN 2007! Reply New Comment View Thread
Castration, like that will work.. [by Anonymous Citizen on October 4, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) All this talk about castration is just plain rediculous. What good will that do? A lot, probably over half, of the offenses don't even involve the man's penis anyway. There is many cases of penetration with a finger, and object, etc. A lot of times its not the plain and simple act of sexual pleasure that involves the man's equipment. So you start castrating sex offenders, whoopy doo, then they will just be angry and turn to other violations of the victims body. You need to treat the mind not the body. And how about some education for these underage girls/boys that keep dropping their pants for them in the first place? It's not too often that i read of a case where the victim was violently attacked and clothing ripped off, etc. Most of the time they are talked into it! Reply New Comment View Thread
You are right [by Anonymous Citizen on October 4, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) "Ex-con" is a great term for someone who committed a crime, did their time, and isn't likely to offend again. However, "repeat offender" is a much more accurate term for sex offenders, who are very likely to repeat again and again and again until they are chemically castrated. Like Dru Sjodin's killer, and that guy who just killed all the Amish school girls in Pennsylvania. Both REPEAT OFFENDERS. Reply New Comment View Thread
Re: Right Wingers playing this... [by Anonymous Citizen on October 4, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) You are correct that right wingers care more about their children than liberals, but this isn't just a liberal or conservative issue. All children deserve protection from predators, regardless of parents political affiliation. Reply New Comment View Thread
Him? what about Her? [by Anonymous Citizen on September 28, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) automatically assume all offenders are male? 30% of offenders are female, according to many studies. Even though only 1-4% of the sex offender list are female. Talk about gender inequality!!! I guess that's why 35% of the military are female and only 2% of Iraqi deaths are female. But they have to be paid the same!!! The only inequality in this country is against men... Reply New Comment View Thread
Callousness [by Anonymous Citizen on September 28, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) Our country is becoming more and more callous. We used to call people ex-cons...implying they did their time, now let them get on with their frickin lives. Now we call them "offenders" and they must be punished with a scarlett letter the rest of their living days!! The Bible says in the last days men's hearts will grow cold, and I believe it!! Reply New Comment View Thread
Right Wingers playing this for all it's worth [by Anonymous Citizen on September 28, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) The right wingers have been playing the sex offender thing for all it's worth. Only in the right wing world does it make sense to lump a 20 year old man who had a 16 year old g/f in with 50 year old men that victimized small children. Such is the case with current sex offender laws. Reply New Comment View Thread
Re: castration!! how idiotic!! [by Anonymous Citizen on September 22, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) The difference is not a subtle one, but you may have missed it anyway. A mentally challenged person is innocent, whereas a sexual offender is displaying predatory behavior, and is therefore guilty. That's why castration is an excellent idea, especially for predators displaying repeat behavior. Reply New Comment View Thread
State Wide Ban - YES [by Anonymous Citizen on September 22, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) My God, would that be terrific. Imagine being able to enjoy all those public areas without enduring lung-clogging, artery-hardening smoke. I was standing with 5 other people under a bus shelter on a rainy day in downtown Minneapolis yesterday. Everyone gave her looks, but she obviously and purposely ignored each and every person, preferring instead to gratify herself and kill everyone else in the bus shelter. That is the choice smokers make in public every day. Also, it is obvious in reading this message board that the pro-smoking posts are canned messages written by special interest groups, made to look like independent citizens. Please pass this excellent legislation and lower health costs statewide. Reply New Comment View Thread
Hair Transplants [by Anonymous Citizen on September 20, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 2336 (Hair Transplant Regulations) What is all the fuss about? Why not regulate all cosmetic surgery? There are many non plastic surgeons masquerading as cosmetic surgeons? I think that doing liposuction or a breast augmentation is more invasive than hair transplant. Why not go after those doctors? My brother had a hair transplant 3 yrs ago and could not be more thrilled with the results. All surgical procedures have risks. Why do we need more regulations just cause some patients are stupid enough to think that risks don't exist. Reply New Comment View Thread
Bullying [by terrywilson on September 10, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 14 (School Bullying) I am pleased to see that progess has begun to happen on this subject. I am in my final year at SCSU in the College of Education and developed a speech a couple years ago on this subject, after Columbine and Rocori had happened. I am now up-dating the same speech to be used in my one of my Education Block classes. I am pleased to be able to include the HF0014 bill which included anti-bullying within it. Thank you for all of you that have worked on this. Reply New Comment View Thread
Reply - Non Smoking Bars [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) I'm sorry to read that your state is apparently considering this silly extension of the nanny state, as well. Unfortunately, as shown by a number of posts, common sense is already out the window in Minnesota, too. I'm writing from Colorado, a state that recently passed a state-wide smoking ban. We're just a month into it and a number of smaller neighborhood bars across the metro-Denver area are hurting severely. And for the commie-libs out there who make the claim, just to set the record straight, there aren't any credible studies that show a significant link between environmental tobacco smoke and disease rates in nonsmokers. There are studies that are credible; there are studies that purport to show a link; but you don't find both qualities in the same study. Credible studies find no significant link. This is why the EPA's finding that enviromental tobacco smoke posed a health risk was not allowed to be admitted and/or judicial notice taken in a civil trial as recently as 1998. What's really going on here is that the Tobacco Nazi's found themselves at a loss to restrict smoking in certain public places that cater to smokers. At this point, such places are pretty much limited to bars and restaurants. The path of least resistance for the Nazi's to continue their crusade was to fall back on the myth of that there was some danger to exposure to secondhand smoke. The myth was created years ago, but it offered a convenient ruse for the do-gooders of today: By declaring tobacco smoke a significant health hazard, the nannies have pierced the protections offered by traditional private property rights and are able to regulate smoking out of all public places, including bars, using the same justification by which food and beverage safety is enforced. The reality is that this isn't a health issue for nonsmokers. It's a property rights issue, plain and simple. The alleged hazard that secondhand smoke presents is nothing more than a red herring by which the anti's can get into your pub and enforce their preferences. It's not a step in the right direction...unless you're a socialist or something. Jim Westminster, CO Reply New Comment View Thread
Castration? How idiotic!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on July 29, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) Unfortunately, castration would only create a whole new group of vicious people who have had their rights taken away from them. Yes they do have rights, once they served their time for their crime, their civil rights have been restored to them. If a person (any person) chooses to be a parent, they have that right. We have laws that prevent hysterectomies from being done on mentally retarded females, (they can be very dangerous to an infant or child), so why should anyone else lose their rights to the same thing. Reply New Comment View Thread
tax payers money [by Anonymous Citizen on July 29, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) It costs about $6000 month (tax payers money) to keep an inmate in prison, about $9000 month (again tax payers money) to keep a patient in St. Peter (MSOP) whether he receives "treatment" or not, or we can pay for a treatment program starting out as inpatient, gradually releasing him to society, and have a good chance of not paying for him forever. That would be where I'd put my vote. Reply New Comment View Thread
I don't care if you smoke as long as it doesn't affect me [by Anonymous Citizen on June 27, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) I have never had anyone ask me if they minded if they smoked. I find your arguement pretty shallow. Countless studies have proven that second hand smoke is bad. It needs to be banned. If you want to end your life early by smoking, I don't care. However, I do care when it negatively affects other people. Go to the Body Worlds exhibit at the science museum. Check out the smokers lungs and enlarged heart (from smoking). Reply New Comment View Thread
DUH [by jemoon on June 17, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 19 (Farm Restoration Project) ARE YOU A COMPLETE IDIOT. DO NOT WASTE TAX MONEY SAVING A FARM. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER GOVERMENT SUPPORTED TOURIST TRAP. Reply New Comment View Thread
IT WOULD BE BETTER [by jemoon on June 17, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 13 (Stem Cell Research) OH DANNY BOY READ MATTHEW 18: ESPECIALLY VERSES 5-7. NO MATTER WHAT YOU OR I BELIVE. THE ONE WHO HAS EARNED THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ALL HUMANITY, WILL JUDGE. Reply New Comment View Thread
re: non-smoking bar [by Anonymous Citizen on June 12, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Nope, I'm not a Democrat. In fact, I'm a conservative Republican who writes on blogs and avidly listens to AM1280, the Patriot. So you can see that this is an issue that is so obvious that both Republicans and Democrats can agree -- People shouldn't kill other people with cancer in bars and restaurants. Reply New Comment View Thread
non-smoking bar... [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Nope, not a smoker, just a business man. You sound like a liberal Democrat that supports big and bigger government. The politicans made it political, not the bar owners. Reply New Comment View Thread
re: Non-smoking Bars [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) You sound like a smoker. You should try to quit. Those cancer sticks'll kill ya'. Anyone who tells you bars are closing because of smoke-free bar laws is full of BS, plain and simple. Most people who write those messages are just making stuff up on the 'net, because they want to politicize the issue. I go to the bars all over the twin cities metro area all the time, and they are as busy and packed as ever. The only difference is that they are now much, much more enjoyable, since they are now fresh and clean, and free of filthy, disgusting, and lung clogging smoke. You mentioned banning red meat. Well, you may (or may not) be bright enough to see the difference between red meat and smoking. Red meat may kill YOU, but smoking will kill YOU and OTHERS as well. I realize most smokers are too short sighted and selfish to think of anyone but themselves, so they really don't care. That's why we need laws like the excellent smoking ban. Reply New Comment View Thread
Non-smoking Bars [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Smokers may be the minority in the world. I would not argure that because I have not idea. I would like to pose a question; If this is such a good idea why oh why is there not a non-smoking bar on every corner??, or even one corner. I will tell you why, because most people who drink also smoke, they go hand in hand or alteast used to. Many people have decided to just stay home. When your new favorite non-smoking bar in your neighborhood closes because their new non-smoking customers only come out once a month, you can stay home too. Or maybe you could drink and smoke in a select county then drive to your home county to go home. What's next? No more grilled meat, french fries...How about government subsidies for the bar the owners that are going broke or the servers that can't pay their bills... Stop the Madness Reply New Comment View Thread
Excellent Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) I normally do not like the idea of Gov't intervening in people's lives, but this is one instance where it is warranted and needed. Here's why: There are no benefits to smoking. None. Not one single aspect of smoking is a good thing. Most people who smoke wish they didn't. Of course, there are some (crazy) people who will say that they are glad they smoke. But most people wish they didn't. Unfortunately, quitting smoking is very difficult, and people who smoke often lack the resolve and the discipline to try very hard. These kinds of bans will help smokers in that struggle. Of course, it will take time. But eventually, the continued absence of smoking from all sorts of establishments will make it easier for smokers to kick the habit. As they say, "out of sight, out of mind". Also, for those of us that put forth the effort to take care of our health and to not smoke, it is always an annoyance to be around a smoker. 99% of the time, we don't say anything, but that doesn't mean we enjoy having the second-hand smoke clogging our lungs and arteries. I wish these bans had come along 20 years ago. It would have been great during my younger years to go to the bars and have clean, fresh air. Reply New Comment View Thread
Re: "Got Integrity" [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2006] about 2005 Special Session 1 Senate Bill 22 (Constitutional Definition of Marriage) "All MN residents should CLEARLY have the same civil rights to love and legally unite with/marry anyone whom they choose." --------------------------------------- Oh really?? So a MN resident can go ahead and marry their labrador retreiver? Or can a MN resident marry 3 or 4 of his girlfriends? The answer is "no" you say? Why not?? People should be able to marry whoever they want, right?? Listen, the VAST MAJORITY of people want to maintain the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. And since we live in a democracy, the majority rules. Reply New Comment View Thread
Victim?????? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 5, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) How is there a victim in a relationship between a 16/18 year old that was consenual? That's in one state, but in another state that relationship is legal. So how can you say it is so terrible that in one state you become a sex offender and in another is aok? Doesn't seem right to me. There is no reasoning to the laws in situations such as this. You can urinate behind a bush and become a sex offender. Let's get real. Who are we protecting? I'm not sure the sex offender registry protects anyone. But I am sure people guilty of the above offenses and offenses like those do not belong in catergory of sex offender. Reply New Comment View Thread
Reply to "If you're worth it" [by Anonymous Citizen on May 4, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 3 (Minimum Wage Increase) Worth it or not, the cost of housing, taxes, gas and food are still going higher every year. If the low wage earner has to live off Welfare it's coming out of you're tax dollars. I agree on the drinking and gambling part, smoking too! I don't spend money on any of those. Even without those three expenses one still cannot make it on minimum wage salaries. Add up your bills and see if you could survive on minimum wages! Reply New Comment View Thread
Amazed [by Anonymous Citizen on April 29, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 2505 (Renaming the TwinsBaseball Team the "Hennepin County Twins") I am amazed that while we are loosing manufacturing jobs by the dozens because companies cannot compete in this state due to high taxes, now our fine legislature wants to add more taxes by adding a Twins Stadium. We have got to be coming closer to taxpayer revolt. Reply New Comment View Thread
State Apple [by uzuege on April 25, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 2302 (State Fruit) What's the status of legislation SF2302 to designate the honey crisp apple as the State of Minnesota apple? Reply New Comment View Thread
Big Picture [by Anonymous Citizen on April 24, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 13 (Stem Cell Research) I ask you to look at the Bigger Picture of the world. Almost half a billion of people worldwide live under some type of incurable diseases and disabilities. So, stem cell research could enable to live a normal life as most of us do. Don't you think those people have the right to live like us?? After all millions of embryos are, one way or the other left discared by fertility clinic. I don't see there is anything worng to use those embryos for humanity. Reply New Comment View Thread
abolish the bill [by Anonymous Citizen on April 21, 2006] about 2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places) Every person should have a right to smoke outside of his or her home. Prohibiting smoking will not get citizens to quit, also people who are afraid of getting a second hand smoke should not be around those who do smoke if they are so concerned for they're health. When a person lights up a cigarette he or she asks if it botheres the non-smoking person. If it does they usually move away, smoke then comeback, it should be a matter of opinion of an individual. Why pass a bill that will only get citizens to stop going places where the smoking is prohibited? What would happen if there was a bill that prohibited public display? You are taking away individuals right, and that's not alright. Reply New Comment View Thread
OFF ROAD NOISE [by Anonymous Citizen on April 16, 2006] about 2005 Special Session 1 Senate Bill 69 (Agriculture, Environment, Natural Resources and Economic Development Spending and Policy) ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES,.....12) mandates silencers with decibel limits for off-highway motorcycles on public lands after July 1, 2006,.... 92 decibels is way too high. Snowmobiles are allowed 78 decibels, boats 84. 92 decibels is 3 1/2 times louder than a legal snowmobile. 92 decibels can be heard at distances of greater than a mile and can be irritating at 1/2 mile or more. There is no reason for any off road vehicle to emit more than 78 decibels. Loud off road motocross bikes will ruin it for all off road users. Reply New Comment View Thread
Got integrity [by integrity please on April 14, 2006] about 2005 Special Session 1 Senate Bill 22 (Constitutional Definition of Marriage) All MN residents should CLEARLY have the same civil rights to love and legally unite with/marry anyone whom they choose. I am at a total loss as to how/why people can be so totally blinded by their personal and/or religious biases. As when women wanted the right to vote, Blacks wanted desegregation, etc. -- there were a LOT of STRONGLY felt fears. Today we see how totally wrong and short-sighted we were in those days. This issue of same gender marriage is no different. All people constitutionally should have equal rights. Period. No matter what your opinions or religion say. How can our law-makers not know this?! It saddens me to my core. My hope is that they will open themselves to what is clearly right, act with integrity, and one day be worried about the QUALITY of relationships in families rather than who it is that's in the relationship. Reply New Comment View Thread
Again the above post was intended [by Justice4All on March 22, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) to go in reponse to "reply to 3 replies". I have no idea why the response posts are not going where they should? Reply New Comment View Thread
Because....... [by Justice4All on March 22, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) Your not "saving your kids" from anything. For every offender locked up beyond their sentence, there are thousands of more predators out there. Why should the government (and taxpayers) be made to violate hundred year old law because parents don't want to due their duty and educate their children about strangers and good touch, bad touch? Education is the one thing that has proven over and over to lower sex offense rates. I guess I don't know where you are getting your information about the release of Alfonso Rodriguez? There was never anything that said this man was no longer dangerous. All of the accessments and tools used to screen sex offenders screamed that this man was still dangerous. It was the PEOPLE using these tools who chose to ignore the warning and instead opted to use their un-qualified opinions that because of his age, Rodriguez was no longer dangerous and disregarded the data from the screening tools. Does anyone see the consequences of stepping outside the box now? Reply New Comment View Thread
The above post was actually meant [by Justice4All on March 22, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) to go below and in response to "yeah right" but it ended up down here? Reply New Comment View Thread
It is absolutely crazy for you.... [by Justice4All on March 22, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) to compare the obvious problems with sex offender issues in this country or to place sex offenses in general in the same class of crimes or whatver, committed by people on your list is plane old lunacy. "Everyone deserves a second chance" - "Where is that written?" Um, in the constitution of the United States and in countless other Federal Documents. It's called "restoritive justice", maybe your lynch mob party has heard that term before? To compare the crimes of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot to even the worst, most violent, sex offense is pure crazy talk. Oj, was aquitted by twelve of his peers, get over it. What exactly did Jimmy Carter do? I'm lost there. Tim Mcvey, again, comparing his grizzly crimes to that of a sex offense is crazy. "Maybe we can kiss Osama Bin Laden's ass enough so he will forgive us and take it back? Pretty Please?" Funny thing, had our government paid attention to its intelligence reports that warned over and over of Bin Laden's intentions to attack America, instead of paying attention to the mass sex offender hysteria, 9/11 could have been avoided. Further, if our government had not been involved in things that were none of its business, other countries would not even feel they needed to attack us. Anyone ever consider that? Reply New Comment View Thread
Mr Wright [by Anonymous Citizen on March 16, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 2336 (Hair Transplant Regulations) I send my good wishes to the progress of your much needed bill Having discovered a combination of treatments, finasteride and more novel techniques, which is growing back alot of my long lost hair, surgery seems unnecessary. I would like to share my experiences with you good folks, to show that baldness can in some cases be cured with safe techniques. Thankfully, when I first began to go bald 20 years ago I met a friend of a friend who showed me the scarring from tuft grafting, which put me off going to a surgeon. There are many other cons being perpetrated, which in any other field of endeavour would be offences at common law. It seeems to me that in many cases a charge of common assault could be argued, but police probably wouldn't listen, until there is definitive legislation. Best wishes. Mr Wright Reply New Comment View Thread
Not Good for the Environment [by Anonymous Citizen on March 14, 2006] about 2005 House Bill 216 (Ethanol Mandate Increase) Ethanol is not good for the environment. To farm enough corn for Ethanol production we have to clear-cut forested areas, which are never returned to their original state. Farming is chemically intensive -- we will increase pollution of our land and water with agricultural runoff. And yes, it is harmful to vehicles not designed for it's use -- it causes seals to disintigrate, crack, and leak. When my mechanic replaced the fuel pump on my car, he said it was ruined by Ethanol. Reply New Comment View Thread
Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc. Patent Pending. All rights reserved. Terms of use
Search legislation:
