KS wrote on Feb 5, 2007 3:54 PM:
" Doesn't anyone read Playboy any more? The biggest party school in the United States is UW-Madison. Why not go to the best of the best if your sport of choice is inebriation? People call it Mad City USA. You're missing the party! "
unohoo wrote on Feb 2, 2007 2:03 PM:
" The proposed ordinance is reckless both literally and contextually. What do the chief and mayor think? You would have to know a few basic things about law in general like they should have clear content before you could even attempt to write one. What I've read is a mish-mash of nets, mire, and temperamental scenarios that give local law enforcement way more discretion and leverage than anyone ever intended for this issue or any other that I'm aware of. Any one that says this is a good proposal for any reason should take some time to read a fourth or fifth grade civics book on enacting laws. "
Flounder wrote on Feb 2, 2007 11:56 AM:
" Otter, you couldn't have said it any better. Let them throw their $222 fines in our faces. It's not going to stop people from having a good time, responsibly. And since when is it illegal to have a few drinks and walk home? Better walk than drive, am I right? I also believe this is an infringement of our individual rights. Shame on the La Crosse City Council. I can't wait until one of those clowns gets ticketed. Then we'll see who's laughing. "
Otter wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:24 AM:
" Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.
But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you LaCrosse, isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.
"
Otter wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:11 AM:
" Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.
But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, La Crosse - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. "
Chris DesRoches wrote on Feb 2, 2007 8:23 AM:
" That is the most unfair, discriminating, and untrue statement i have ever heard. What is this about UW-L students being rich? Go ahead and take completely untrue shots at students becuase they are fighting to improve an ordinance to make this city safer. Go ahead and call me rich when I have to take out loans to educate myself. So go ahead and lie and attack the students of the universities in this town because in the end we know that were fighting for a cause we believe in and all you can do hide behind your veil of the internet and snicker at your witty comments. "
They want lifeguards, not solutions wrote on Feb 2, 2007 5:50 AM:
" All these partiers want are their own personal lifeguards. They want to drink as much as possible and have someone there to save them when they go down. I graduated not too long ago and this seems to be the sentiment among some of the drinking crowd. I've even overheard a few making jokes about falling in the river after their weekends of drinking. "
Ashamed of these clowns wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:53 PM:
" Back in the day people would get wound up about our country's future and our involvement in an unjust war. People would COMMIT - protest-civil disobedience- march-riot -to do what they thought was right. Right or wrong, I'm proud of them. This bunch? Upset over what? "
Much Hate wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:27 PM:
" Sounds like everyone for the ordinance hates college kids and people who drink for fun. So why would they care if we die? They don't. they are just envious. Probably still can't get over the wedgies from high school. "
Simple solution wrote on Feb 1, 2007 7:59 PM:
" Why not redirect the bar area into the college area? Move all the bars up between UWL and WTC. This way they are farther away from the river and closer to where they live. We could turn Pine street into drunkard city by lining the street on both sides with bars from say 9th to 16th street. This will give us just as many bars that are now on 3rd & 4th street and we can also get rid of the most dumpiest houses in our city except on the north side of La Crosse. This way when they get up to go to try and learn something the next day, they can walk in their own puke too. Then the schools will step in and make their own rules. "
free beer tomorrow wrote on Feb 1, 2007 6:48 PM:
" D*mn, a few irresponsible kids have ruined the good times for the rest of us. "
Great idea...not wrote on Feb 1, 2007 6:43 PM:
" The ordinance proposed by La Crosse isn't going to stop them from getting sloshed during the weekends. It makes no sense to try and bust every student walking out of a bar at night because its impossible. Hundreds of people are down there and busting one or two won't do the P.D. any good. The ordinance is crap. What they need to do is go in bigger groups of 2 when they go bar hopping. And if this ordinance is proposed, I doubt the bars will lose much business. GO BROTHERS! "
Another 'who cares'.. wrote on Feb 1, 2007 5:05 PM:
" Since many of you students don't think a fine will work, then I say you're on your own. Look out after each other. Don't let your friends wander off, because you've been against just about any kind of solution (except the barrier idea). Many solutions have been offered and both the student body and local bars have been resistant. It's your freedom to choose, and it's your choice to risk your life. If you don't care, why should we? "
Eddie wrote on Feb 1, 2007 4:57 PM:
" 8:19am, I am not going to back off. I attended UW-L for many years, and I lived downtown for many years more. The nature of the situation is that the current ordinance that the city is trying to pass is not the real issue. The real issue is this: college students (and many other people) go downtown for the sole purpose of getting VERY drunk. There is no excuse for it. If UW-L students truly want to solve the problem of alcohol abuse, then all they have to do is STOP GETTING DRUNK. If they do that, then there won't be any need for swiss cheese ordinances. "
Good lesson for these know it all kids wrote on Feb 1, 2007 3:58 PM:
" they are all good liberals, well here is the lesson, you want to hold everyone but yourself responsible for your actions, in the real world they will find a way to get you. "
To prices wrote on Feb 1, 2007 3:33 PM:
" Should Quillins and Festival be forced to raise their prices, too? They are the ones selling the students MOST of their alcohol, and at a much cheaper price than the bars ever could. Have you seen how much beer and booze that is sold from the campus Quillins every week? It is STAGGERING! WHY IS THIS ISSUE IGNORED EVERYTIME SOMEONE BRINGS IT UP? "
Joe from West Chester, PA wrote on Feb 1, 2007 3:15 PM:
" What a great ordinance! One of the most important things about being a student is realizing you have a responsibility to not only yourself but the community in which you are living. It's time for students to be held liable for the damage they do to other people's quality of life. Stop crying about being treated as an adult and earn the respect you want. "
price of beer wrote on Feb 1, 2007 3:08 PM:
" I drink responsibly. No reason why I can't have a cheap beer every now and then. No reason to get rid of the barrel because of a few bad apples. "
Support Ordinance First simple step wrote on Feb 1, 2007 2:52 PM:
"
Addressing the problems involving alcohol have been delayed too long....Step up to the plate and be responsible.... value the lives of many.
This problem will not go away. Lets start with some town meetings-advertising campaigns-public health education...whatever it takes to send the message every life is precious..... "
Bornfree wrote on Feb 1, 2007 2:15 PM:
" What really needs to be done is to get rid of the City Hall Idiots that dream these "Selective" laws up. "
Stupid... wrote on Feb 1, 2007 2:02 PM:
" LaCrosse should concentrate their efforts on more important things. People are going to drink no matter what. Everytime I open the paper their is a drunk driver committing his 2nd, 3rd, 4th offense and how many are not caught so obviously the law does not deter them. People choose to drink and will continue to drink not matter what. Let's start putting time and effort into more important things. I am sick of hearing about it (river drownings, drunk ordinance, etc) We act like this does not happen elsewhere just in LaCrosse. "
Ha! wrote on Feb 1, 2007 1:58 PM:
" So - is the $222 for each fine going to go towards new lights at Riverside Park? What a joke. "
Thimk wrote on Feb 1, 2007 1:55 PM:
" I don't recall any of the students who've met their demise in the river being local. Perhaps it's not the city of La Crosse that has the alcohol education problem but rather the towns/cities they're originally from...?! Maybe we should push for alchol education in these towns and force their taxpayers to cough up more money. "
To: Who Cares? wrote on Feb 1, 2007 1:53 PM:
" You sound like a resentful older person. Don't comment on students if you don't understand them. "
Lucky wrote on Feb 1, 2007 1:51 PM:
" This is nothing but a reactive measure to an issue that needs to be addressed proactively. But then that wouldn't raise revenue, would it? "
Adults Drinking Alcohol wrote on Feb 1, 2007 1:43 PM:
" As we are considering this proposal, the overall goal needs to be addressed. This is a law to punish adults under the age of thirty for CHOOSING to get drunk. These people are adults! Alcohol is a legal substance and the city of La Crosse cannot give me a $200 ticket simply for being drunk. This law will never hold up in a higher court. The wording is entirely too vague and I guarantee will be abused worse than alcohol. "
Prices wrote on Feb 1, 2007 1:18 PM:
" So, get rid of the specials and up the drink prices. "
To: Who Cares wrote on Feb 1, 2007 1:16 PM:
" Your a idiot. Not every student drinks every weekend, has a rich mommy and daddy, and not everyone that goes downtown is a student or at all affiliated with the universities. Its alright to try to regulate drinking, but this ordinance is vague and would mostly likely punish a lot of people who aren't part of the problem. The people opposed to it(not just students) would just like something more specific that would more specifically solve the problem at hand and not just cause more problems. So try to understand the other side before you open your big mouth and come off sounded like a retard. Just alittle advice. "
I love the Civil Rights Arguments wrote on Feb 1, 2007 1:13 PM:
" PLEASE Mr. City...quit taking away my civil rights. Yea...that's it. What civil right says a government cannot stop people from getting so drunk...that we are even considering this ordinance. Enough is enough. For that matter...get rid of the traffic laws, and all laws. It's not about Civil Rights...you idiots, it's about the truth. Too many people are getting too drunk, and their actions are forcing results. I support the mayor and chief..along with the rest of the population...minus 167. "
NoLeftLeg wrote on Feb 1, 2007 1:12 PM:
" I'm regularly drunk and dont oppose this "
RE: Jesse Ingram wrote on Feb 1, 2007 12:54 PM:
" You are 100% right. I also reccomend to anyone who doesn't already have one to download the ACLU's "Bust Card" that tells people what their rights really are when they are stopped, not the BS that any officer who stops you tells them. Binge Drinking is bad, a Police State is worse. "
Response to "Who Cares" wrote on Feb 1, 2007 12:46 PM:
" Your comments were so full of over-generalizations that I don't have enough words to comment. However, as a parent of a college student in LaCrosse I am here to say that not all parents and students are the way you describe them. I sure hope my child never comes in contact with you in any way while in this city, since you seem to have alot of deep-seated anger and resentment issues. "
more food for thought wrote on Feb 1, 2007 12:39 PM:
" Your comment "Why not build a 4-5 foot decorative fence along the problem areas.", is hysterical. Do you know the cost to build a 5 foot fence down lacrosse street, down west avenue to cass, down cass to 19th then north to lacrosse street? Got to be a better way. "
tp wrote on Feb 1, 2007 12:26 PM:
" So what's going to happen when they tap the "Golden Keg"; wake up La Crosse officials you promote drinking... "
Who Cares? wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:44 AM:
" So all those Biff and Muffy's got on their computers that mummy and daddy bought them and joined a facebook.com group before heading out to The Gap or AE to buy a new sweater for the Kegger at the Delta house this weekend. Like we, in the real world, care. Time for the city officials to do a real "smack down" on these "spoiled rich kids" (as another poster put it.) C'mon city council, get real, time to spank these kids, obviously their wine and croissant parents didn't. "
more food for thought wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:41 AM:
" there are 2 problems and only one is being address. yes he alcohol culture, but also the issue of the River needs to be addressed as well. Why not build a 4-5 foot decorative fence along the problem areas. The last thing many drunk people want to do is climb a fence. They have these all along many water ways in high traffic bar and red light disctrict areas around the country. "
Please wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:41 AM:
" this ordinance will not to anything to deter those who want to drink from drinking. If anything this ordinance will promote drunk driving because who wants to get caught stumbling home? Also, this does not just concern college students. It concerns every legal member of the lacrosse community. This isn't about the right to drink, this is about the right to make your own choices about: how much to drink, whether to endanger yourself and drive or be safer and WALK.....Honestly people..get a grip! "
Joker wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:38 AM:
" I give in....party on La Crosse! I quit a long time ago otherwise i'd be paying fines every weekend. "
Food For thought wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:29 AM:
" This ordinance does not get to the root of an of the problems. This whole thing was brought about as a community problem and something that the city of La Crosse needs to look at. However, every ordinance has to do with college students. So if you want to get down to it the root, say we are looking to address the issues of college students and not the "La Crosse Community." In the minds of many the colleges and and city are 2 seperate thing. "
Trivial laws wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:24 AM:
" If I want to get wasted and jump in the river, that is exactly what I am going to do. The laws can keep getting stricter on the everyday citizen, but I'll still do it when I want to. "
Wrong approach... wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:21 AM:
" I question the city's ordiance proposal. It seems they are attempting to strip people of their civil rights in the name of safety. Giving the police the discretion to ticket based on such loose criteria is a recipe for abuse of authority. Fines haven't been successful as of yet to deter drinking. This proposal will drive the problem "underground" - people will party at houses and NEVER call the police if someone has gone missing. How is this a solution? "
walking vs driving wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:19 AM:
" People will drive instead of walk in order to avoid a ticket??? If people are too stupid to realize that driving while drunk IS NOT A GOOD THING TO DO, then they deserve more than just a ticket. "
What's next? wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:16 AM:
" If cops can actively go up to people to see if they're drunk, then they should be able to go up to people and see if they are in this country legally. Papers please! "
re: Writing a Letter?? wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:08 AM:
" If you look at the resolution at the end of the article, you will notice that a 60 day delay is not mentioned. When this resolution was drafted, we were obviously not aware of the 60 day delay recommended in Tuesdays Common Council’s Judiciary and Administration Committee. VanLoo recognized the importance of making the concerns of students heard and made a classy move in drafting a letter in lieu of Senate being deadlocked on the RESOLUTION at hand after hearing the chief talk. While there were disagreements on the resolution, there was few to no bodies on the Senate floor that disagreed with the fact that this ordinance in its current verbiage is not in the best interests of students and does little to actually provide preventative safeguards to harmful behavior. "
solutions wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:01 AM:
" SO.....what would you suggest be done? It would be nice to hear some alternative solutions rather than BIG words, and/or Blaming others for our own actions.....how bout some brainstorming to help the city, bartenders and public come up with a better solution....it shouldn't take another tragedy to occur to figure out that something should be done about SOME out of control habits..so use this space to brainstorm with others productively to resolve this matter and make some suggestions to help with this problem....lets hear it...la crosse has a lot of intelligence out there and I am sure together something good can happen if people work together, instead of ignoring that there is obviously things we can all do to be safer and more responsible....it isn't ALL downtowner's that present a problem, just some irresponsibility of SOME..... "
Re: For Your Information wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:53 AM:
" I'm glad to hear about the Facebook group of students that are willing to take a stand against this public intoxication ordinance. It egregiously strips civil rights and places way to much discretionary power in the hands of the police. Any citizen of any age should be signing on with this group. I was a freshman at UW-L in 1970(different name then), and as a citizen of La Crosse, I would stand firmly with this group. If the police state proponents intend to continue to push for this ordinance, they better find some larger rooms to hold their meetings in, because the number of people against this ordinance is going to grow exponetially. "
Finally wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:52 AM:
" Finally the local media has covered the other side of this issue. If you have been following the alcohol issue in LaCrosse, you would get the impression that all the recommendations made by the non-elected, one-sided, stacked deck alcohol committee were approved, obvious and unopposed. I think the police, mayor and media got a wake up call on Tuesday night. 167+ citizens showed up at J+A meeting to oppose these foolish laws. Better get a larger room next time because the crowd that opposes special secret meetings, little public input, laws that infringe on personal liberty, will be back in LARGER NUMBERS! "
word to the wise wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:50 AM:
" keep a close watch on the City, they have been known to quickly pass things in the Council if there is no one to watch over them. keep going to the meetings, because the day no one shows, is the day they pass the ordinace. "
to For your information wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:49 AM:
" Are the students who signed the petition the same ones who were crying last fall that the city doens't do anything to protect them? "
Response to All you liberal do gooders wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:40 AM:
" Finally! I was waiting for the local crazy person who would relate the drinking ordinance issue to the Iraq war and throw the word 'liberal' all over the place....now this issue is starting to feel like a La Crosse issue. Could you please repost and relate the Ten Commandments issue and gay marriage issue to the drinking ordinance?---I just stopped laughing and need more entertainment. "
Student Senator wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:40 AM:
" When I first looked at this ordinance, I came up with countless questions about its implementation and enforcement that made me concerned about how it will be used. After hearing an architect of the ordinance attempt to explain it, I only became more concerned that those pressing questions would simply be ignored if the ordinance passed how it stands. Students are supporting the 60-day delay because we want to work with the city to make this a law that actually does make our community safer, not more dangerous. This 60-day delay gives us students a chance to have a constructive voice in this city. "
Jesse Ingram wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:32 AM:
" The proposed ordinance is one intended to scare and give them blanket authority to question, it goes beyong the constituional rights of privicy and freedom. Reasonable belief that there is a violation occurring or has occurred becomes intent to inquire and is too far. I personally do not oppose attempts to minimize excessive drinking but this ordinance blantently disregards the rights the citizens in our community. "
Writing a letter?? wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:30 AM:
" The senated president is writing a letter saying students support the 60 day delay. The next paragraph states that after discussion in the senate, they chose to take no stance. Does this make any sense?? "
TRON wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:18 AM:
" Wow....$222 a citation. Sounds like the City of La Crosse needs some more spending money.
As for "Eddie" you should probably just sit at home and watch your A-TEAM re-runs and CNN news telling you the end of the world is near.
Get a clue La Crosse
"
Oktoberfest wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:10 AM:
" We'll see what all you law-abiding "adults" (and I use the term loosely) think of this ordinance come Oktoberfest. The way it's worded now they can just stand outside the gate and start a ordinance line to speed things up. "
All you liberal do gooders wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:02 AM:
" Thius is what happens when you get your way, the blame for your actions gets passed on to everyone else. Well now watch out because the city is not going to babysit you for free, you can cry about a bartender serving you, and a bar owner having cheap drinks.......but thankfully the city is going to hold YOU accountable for YOUR actions and it is gonna cost you. It's the liberal way, we are not smart enough and do not have common sense enough to run our own lives so we will make up rules to protect us from anything bad........there you go, you got what you wished for.......next we will pull the troops out of Iraq (NOT)! "
Problems wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:51 AM:
" The Introduction of a New city Ordinance of Public Intoxication may run into some legal problems.
On it's face the new ordinance is to broad. There is no Formulas for officers to follow and is subjective. Would police be able to give a breathalyzer test to people walking down the streets? And would the 0.08 driving law, be the mesure of public drunkeness? And A constitution argument could be raised under the 4th Amendment, subjective probable cause.
It is very iffy ground the city is treding on in trying to pass a one sided ordinance.
It gives the Police free will to stop anyone for any reason. "
For your information wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:33 AM:
" Just to let you know, there is a Facebook group called something like 'Stop the Public Intoxication Ordinance', and it has over 1,100 members from the UW-L community- and counting. I know Kondracki and Johnsrud are a little old to understand Facebook, but the number of members there who are mad about this ordinance is pretty signifigant- and most of them are former and current students. "
Fred wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:29 AM:
" This article makes it sound like it's just the students who oppose and they're just "confused". I think not! If you were at the meeting you'd know it was across the board opposition. "
Early 20 something (no longer in college) wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:17 AM:
" My only problem with this legislation is there is no BAC tied to this. It only takes a minute to give a person a breathalizer test, so it is not a major inconvienence is the police is going to fine a person -- college student or 40 something resident of the city -- $222 for a first offense. I understand the city of wanting to be tougher on binge drinking in this city, but this ordinance needs to be fleshed out a little better to make it better. "
Guts wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:09 AM:
" What's wrong with the existing ordinances? Work on enforcing those. If the city put as much effort into enforcing the existing ordinances (i.e. public intoxication, disorderly conduct) as they do into ticketing parked cars, we'd have fewer problems. Stop weilding the chalk and weild some guts. "
lets do a raffle wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:54 AM:
" Why not sell raffle tickets on campus and the winners would be given a "get drunk free card" which would allow them to drink til their floating in the river and not have to pay a fine if caught! It is so sad that evidently smart young adults are so desparite to hang on to their bottles! GROW UP! People are dying in the river or being left for died because of a culture that encourages alcoholism... "
Civil Liberty wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:47 AM:
" Any citizen, not just college students, would do well to question and reject this ordinance. "
Bottom line? wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:44 AM:
" This ordinance will do nothing to deter drinking, because it isn't illegal to go downtown and have a few drinks, at which point rational behavior takes a back seat to the desire to continue partying and get good and liquered up. You want to keep the students away from downtown? Put a hash bar on campus. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Ed. "
Its ridiculous wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:44 AM:
" So I am a clumsy person and lets say I have had two drinks and a cop sees me trip over the curb. I am going to get a $222 ticket for being clumsy? "
Re: Ingrates wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:34 AM:
" "spoiled rich kids"? I am still paying off my loans that I took out to increase my earning potential. Obviously some individuals have never set foot on any campus in La Crosse. Students are not all 18-22 and a bunch of drunks. Perhaps we should boycot these "ingrates" and stop going to the doctor, using banks, enjoying police protection, driving on paved roads, and using the internet to make uneducated postings. That will show them! "
DON'T DELAY wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:33 AM:
" This ordinance needs to be implemented immediately. Stop crying college students. "
To:Heil! wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:28 AM:
" Actually, first they came for the smokers...but you did nothing because you don't smoke. Then the drinkers...same thing. Just watch, they will probably target the servers next. Who is going to be around to protect us when they come for us? What happened to this country? "
Heil! wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:22 AM:
" First they came for the drinkers... "
re: Eddie wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:19 AM:
" back off. you obviously have no clue regarding the nature of this situation. you think we want the ordinance delayed so we can have 60 more days of "freedom"? Read the ordinance...it could easily pass for a giant slice of swiss cheese. What kind of message would that send to the student body if we blindly endorsed the measure, failing to raise the many concerns in the ordinance...namely the "catch and release" formula used in the implementation? This does absolutely nothing to actually increase the safety of drinkers. If I a student gets ticket for this when he/she is already wasted, do you think that will be some magic pill for them to sober up and find their way home without any obstacles? I'd probably want to head West for another drink to celebrate my equivilent of an underage ticket. "
CJ wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:17 AM:
" Amen, Northside Guy. Am I living in LaX 2007 or Salem, Mass. 1700's? If the smoking ban is passed, will I get a ticket if the cops smell tobacco on my breath? Let's not go off half-cocked here, councils. "
Over-reaction wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:14 AM:
" I am not a student, and I don't like this policy at all. This is way too vague and the fine is way too much. You will just drive everything underground. What ever happened to the buddy system. Twenty years ago we never went drinking by ourselves and we did not leave anyone behind. "
To: Northside Guy wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:06 AM:
" No wonder they say the people from the northside of LaCrosse are dumb...I believe the ordinance is specific and has to give officers grounds for even considering a citation. I trust our officers, who do a great job by the way will use thier discretion, and try and help stop this terrible problem. I love that Ms. Radloff gets it, as do most of us. Thank you to the people who get it and are not afraid of an ordinance that says you can't be drunk and stupid. We have had enough "
To: Ingrates wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:05 AM:
" How smart are you? They are a bunch of "spoiled rich kids" because they are attending a university and taking an active stance on an important issue in the community? "Punks"? Sounds like someone may have some problems of their own. Get out from behind your couch and join the real world. Time to grow a pair, punk! "
ets wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:04 AM:
" Excessive drinking is a problem across all age groups in this city, not just the student population. An ordinance would be applicable to all. "
Allumnus wrote on Feb 1, 2007 7:30 AM:
" Officials: Make the ordinance more specific, but don't back down on the issue. "
houska boys wrote on Feb 1, 2007 7:06 AM:
" why is this all about the students? (Its not, most of you will say) yet, it is, You can't tell me come oktoberfest the majority (tickets) will be the students. (its like do you ever see truckers pulled over for speeding or jake breaking in the city?)
AND WHAT ABOUT THE DRUNKS AT HOUSKA AND COPELAND what cop is going to write a ticket to his buddy!!!????!!!??!?!!?!?
Bite on that one ED. "
Ingrates wrote on Feb 1, 2007 6:47 AM:
" Great, the city council kow-tows to a bunch of spoiled rich kids who can't handle their alcohol and keep out of the river. Time to "grow a pair" and do something about these punks. "
Northside Guy wrote on Feb 1, 2007 6:08 AM:
" To all other concerned citizens:
A ticket for smelling like a beer?? The powers that be are really throwing their weight around on this one. Just remember, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!!! "
Eddie wrote on Feb 1, 2007 5:49 AM:
" Why would students from UW-La Crosse care about a public intoxication ordinance? What possible reason would they have for delaying or preventing such an ordinance? Students, when will you grow up and admit that you have NO excuse for going downtown and getting drunk? At least one student, Kaitlynn Radloff, has the integrity to address the real problem. "
Ticket them wrote on Feb 1, 2007 5:40 AM:
" First students complain about being the targeted group of this proposed ordinance and that the city 'hates' them. Now, they're the ones asking for a 60 day postponement. I wonder why that could be...... "
Good wrote on Feb 1, 2007 12:54 AM:
" At least get this delayed until this school year is over. Then I will be going to my home town. I can't party like I do here when I go back, so I want to do my real partying here, my last year of school. "
Advertisement
