wxman91

How about this - don't push over the goalie.

What a beautiful pass and shot.

BC goes up 1-0. The lighting in that arena is tripping me out. It is like they combined warm and cool colors.

Northeastern wins 3-2

See, blaming Obama for that fundamentally doesn't make any sense. These kinds of "movements" are reactionary. The Tea Party was a reaction to big government that really coalesced during the ACA battles. I could say that the Bernie socialists (not actual socialists) are a reaction to the Tea Party or GWB, but in reality I think it goes deeper, and back to Reagan. There was a point in this country where capitalism was this great force that raised all boats. Despite the rather ruthless nature of it, there was a sort of social construct that existed where the result was the semblance of a balanced class system. Especially in the 80s, coincident with the failed trickle down economics ideas, there was this shift where greed really just took over in full force. The great example is the transition of the holdings of public companies from a shareowner society to a shareholder society. The companies ceased to matter and only the bottom line was the ticket. The next quarter's earnings were paramount. Stock prices go up and CEOs get paid when workforce are slashed, because people were no longer seen as assets, but liabilities. And of course offshoring and automation chipped away at jobs. From that point in the Reagan years this economy has grown primarily on bubbles. The tech bubble during Clinton, housing bubble during Bush, and now Fed manipulation during Obama. We have been harmed by a dual edged sword of demographics and shortsightedness from the business community. And as we move forward, we are seeing the ugly warts of US capitalism and there is a blowback to that. I don't support Bernie because I don't find his plans plausible, but I am not going to rag on those who are spotting this failing economic system and calling it out.

Lowell wins in 3OT on a, let's put it kindly, "redirected" goal off of a skate.

That polarization is not exclusive to one side.

I've been "worried" that the logo was a big factor in all of this, but there is another possibility. If it is true that the current students voted heavily for the Fighting Hawks, it could be that they are still very tied to the high school experience and therefore gave an outsized importance to the Red River nickname. While most of the rest of us, well removed from that age, realize that high school is completely irrelevant. Just a thought.

LOL.

I spent 6 years at UND in the late 90s/early 00s. I never once heard the "word" Nodak. When it started popping up in the nickname conversation, I wondered how people were thinking that they'd sneak in another tribal name (I had just assumed that's what it was). It is not the unofficial name of the school, it is a stupid contraction of the name of the state, and was by far the worst of the 5 options (way behind Sundogs).

Yeah, this is how it should be done.

After I got the alumni magazine a week or two ago, I showed my wife the list of names. She has no connection to ND and has no interest in sports. I asked her what she thought was the best name on the list. Her only question: "what is a Nodak?"

Lets try it out for some other states: Univ. of New Hampshire Newhamps Univ. of North Carolina Nocars Univ. of New Mexico Newmexes Univ. of South Carolina Socars Univ. of Rhode Island Rhodisls Sounds stupid, doesn't it.

I spent 6 years at UND (BS, MS) and never once heard the term NoDak. When it started coming up in the nickname discussions I honestly thought that it might be the name of another tribe. IMO, it is far, far worse than Sundogs, which actually has some relevance to the state, and is not just some ridiculous, redundant shortcut name. The voters should choose Roughriders because it is the only name on the list that isn't awful.

1998. Jimmy outrunning the DBs on that TD. We were in the end zone that he was coming towards. Pandemonium. Not quite as fun as running on the field in Florence after the championship, though.

The problem I have with Nodaks is the same one I have with North Stars. When you put it together with the name of the university, it just sounds silly. The University of North Dakota Nodaks! It seems like whoever came up with the name decided to just grab the first couple of letters from each part of the state's name and make a nickname

Nicely put. Nodaks and North Stars are just non-starters for me. Fighting Hawks is just so generic, but I could deal with it I guess. I don't have the vitriolic hatred of Sundogs as most do, I think it is a cool atmospheric phenomena (my bias showing through - hence my username), and Urban Dictionary is just the dumbest reason to drop something. That said, I understand that most hate it. That leaves roughriders, which is what I figured would be the name since this all started a million years ago. /another libby-liberal

Cool, because that's exactly what I wrote.

Greece has a whole host of other issues including the failure to actually collect taxes to keep their system going. They are tipped too far, as is Italy and Spain.

And the alternative is...? California is running a surplus. Kansas is the state you are thinking of.

Yes, because eliminating the for-profit middlemen and having the government negotiate directly with the private sector providers on behalf of the 300M+ Americans is the equivalent to walking around calling each other comrade.

Yup.

Yep, it would be the best move to eliminate the for-profit health care insurance industry completely.

There was just an article that health insurance rates would be going up in certain states quite quickly because the insurance companies did not anticipate how sick the new people getting care would be. Some people cited that as the ACA not working. I view it as the ACA working spectacularly. Sick people getting care is the only important thing and is completely opposite of what the opposing political party wants. They prefer the status quo of diminishing insurance coverage and medical-related bankruptcies because anything that benefits the wealthy is the only thing that matters. But neither of us are going to convince the other, so there isn't much point arguing.

Then what was the point of you chiming in on this discussion?