Goon Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 What do you call someone who has Hitler birthday parties and a portrait painted of himself as an SS officer? The Gaming Commission had only given out one fine before Uncle Ralphies that was larger, that was to the Stardust for letting the Chicago Outfit skim the joint. How did he keep a union controlled by Chicago out when no one else could? The Gaming Commission called his collection the "War Room". Stevie Bluestein was a main business agent organizer at the time and he was also part of Tony Spilotro's crew out of Chicago. The president of the union got killed over not paying the bombers that he had bombing restaurants around the valley for not organizing. So then why was Uncle Ralphie allowed to be non-union? What about Uncle Ralphies partnership with a mob lawyer in Apex? I am going to trust the FBI over you. You still didn't answer my question; John Hoff? You are spitting out the same garbage Hoff does. You don't by chance think the statute out front of REA is from Nazi Germany do you? Quote
Hawkster Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Your logic doesn't flow. That's my exact point. You will get your butt kicked by using those names. However "Sioux" has been a name these people have used to identify themselves for a very long time now. That's why your "dagos" example doesn't work. Keep trying. We've been down this rabbit trail before. We all know that "Sioux" was a derogatory name hung on the Dakota/Lakota Tribes by the French. Granted, they use it now, but it's not up to us to say we have a right to use it as we want. Quote
Sioux27 Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 What do you call someone who has Hitler birthday parties and a portrait painted of himself as an SS officer? The Gaming Commission had only given out one fine before Uncle Ralphies that was larger, that was to the Stardust for letting the Chicago Outfit skim the joint. How did he keep a union controlled by Chicago out when no one else could? The Gaming Commission called his collection the "War Room". Stevie Bluestein was a main business agent organizer at the time and he was also part of Tony Spilotro's crew out of Chicago. The president of the union got killed over not paying the bombers that he had bombing restaurants around the valley for not organizing. So then why was Uncle Ralphie allowed to be non-union? What about Uncle Ralphies partnership with a mob lawyer in Apex? Yes we have all seen Casino! Spilotro (or should we say Nicky Santoro) was an enforcer, but you have the wrong names. Caifano and Roselli are the guys you want with the direct ties. Spilotro started at Circus Circus and then moved to the Stardust (He and that punk Sinatra still owe me 20 large). Being a partner of a mob lawyer means nothing in your argument.....do think the mob isn't in your back yard? I am surprised you didn't name drop the fact that Ralph was also friends with Momo and Auippa! Why not also list the "capos" instead of the "hammers"? Quote
Sioux-cia Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 (hermit @ Apr 16 2008, 03:38 PM) Go into Bensonhurst and start calling people dagos or wops and see how fast you get your as% kicked. So, when I go onto a reservation and start calling people Sioux, I can expect to get my as% kicked? Answer the question, momo. Quote
Goon Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Answer the question, momo. They won't answer the question they just keep spewing propaganda. Heck it doesn't even have to be true. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Folks, please quit feeding the trolls. They'll become virtually extinct after UND changes the name. They'll lose their only soapbox, their "cause celeb". Don Quixote will not have a windmill to tilt at. Thus, we'll never have to listen for this reason ever again. They'll be frozen out, and UND will still be going to Frozen Fours. That, friends, is the best revenge, as it's both self-desired and self-inflicted: on them, by them. As I've told many: Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. Quote
MafiaMan Posted April 17, 2008 Author Posted April 17, 2008 If Venice, Milan, or Genoa chose to call their local sports teams "Dagos," how could city leaders possibly turn around and scold the University of North Dakota as being racist should it choose the same nickname? No comment, hermit? I re-posted it again for your opinion. Do Italians who are OK with the word "dago" somehow have power over that word so they can use it if they want? By the same token, if Compton High were to re-name itself a slang version of the infamous "N-word," would it be acceptable because a large portion of the young African-American community feels its a term of endearment? When Standing Rock/Fort Yates and other native schools in North Dakota start changing their nicknames from Warriors, Chiefs, Indians, and Sioux, I'll be the first in line to tell UND its time to change the nickname. Until then, if Sioux is acceptable for someone to call him or herself but its racist for me to call him or her that, well, you and the rest of your outer-space left wing-nuts can call me what you want. Quote
dagies Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 We've been down this rabbit trail before. We all know that "Sioux" was a derogatory name hung on the Dakota/Lakota Tribes by the French. Granted, they use it now, but it's not up to us to say we have a right to use it as we want. It's still a relevant argument. Regardless of where the name originated from, in the 20th century it took on new meaning and was used by the Tribes themselves. Heck, "Yankees" is very possibly of the same situation. Shall we consider that name derogatory as well? The issue here isn't that the name is derogatory. The issue is whether it is acceptable in our society for non-native americans to use that name as a nickname or an identifier. For that reason hermit's "dago" argument doesn't wash. And yes, being the Tribes gave UND permission to use the name I would say we CAN use the name how we want. At issue is whether it's reasonable for anyone to request that UND give up using the name, and at this point UND has agreed to do so unless they can gain that permission again. Quote
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 ...friends with Momo and Auippa!... Listen, Big Tuna wants you to quit mentioning Giancana and Doves. Dere good friends of his. Oterwise, he's gonna want No Nose and The Clown to come talk wit you. And before youse even start: leave The Waiter outta dis entirely. Quote
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 ... in the 20th century it took on new meaning and was used by the Tribes themselves. IIRC, members of the Sioux tribe were in Washington recently to accept a Congressional Medal of Honor. Did they themselves use this "derogatory" term? Did the various politicans and military leaders also use it? Was there some sort of uproar? Please, enough of this canard that somehow the word itself is derogtory. Also, let me point out that we now have not one but two trolls present; that should be more than enough to let everyone know that this thread is going nowhere fast. Quote
hermit Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Yes we have all seen Casino! Spilotro (or should we say Nicky Santoro) was an enforcer, but you have the wrong names. Caifano and Roselli are the guys you want with the direct ties. Spilotro started at Circus Circus and then moved to the Stardust (He and that punk Sinatra still owe me 20 large). Being a partner of a mob lawyer means nothing in your argument.....do think the mob isn't in your back yard? I am surprised you didn't name drop the fact that Ralph was also friends with Momo and Auippa! Why not also list the "capos" instead of the "hammers"?Marshall and Johnnie were out of Vegas when Ralph built the casino. Then how did Ralph keep the union out? Quote
hermit Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Answer the question, momo. What is the question? It is very hard to understand a batch of mental midgets. Quote
Chewey Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 What is the question? It is very hard to understand a batch of mental midgets. Very original, indeed. In the PC lexicon, isn't the term "midget" hostile, abusive, degrading and demeaning? Is the use of such a term an example of another double-standard that you live by? The simple throwing out of trite and hackneyed phrases and the continual recitation of sophomoric positions with no logical basis at all simply reaffirms my conclusion that you and people like you have no rational mindset at all. The banality and creative lethargy of the PC side of life is manifested once again. Quote
Sioux-cia Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 What is the question? It is very hard to understand a batch of mental midgets. Well, if your caregiver had read the entire post to you, you'd know the question. I quess they're editing the posts they read to you. You have joined the short list. hermit is on ignore. Have a good life in that tunnel you live in. Good bye. Quote
MafiaMan Posted April 17, 2008 Author Posted April 17, 2008 If Venice, Milan, or Genoa chose to call their local sports teams "Dagos," how could city leaders possibly turn around and scold the University of North Dakota as being racist should it choose the same nickname? I'll try a third time, hermit. Here's my question. Quote
andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 That is nonsense. Like has been posted, it is in the public domain. How about the "Dakota" in the state's name? How about Washington State? If the decedents of George Washington don't like the state being named for him, should they be able to force a change? How about the city of New Germany Minnesota? Should Germans or people with German ancestry (my family) be able to force a change? How about the USC Trojans? Should they have to change their nickname becuase there are no Trojans left to ask how they feel about the name and hence forth we don't know if it is approved or not? Care to respond to this as well hermit? Quote
Goon Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I'll try a third time, hermit. Here's my question. Very interesting but he isn't going to answer the question. Very evasive. Quote
siouxforeverbaby Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 What is the question? It is very hard to understand a batch of mental midgets. which is derogatory in itself both to midgets who can not help that they are short and to people of slower learning who can not help the fact that they learn slower than others or in other words have a slower mental capacity than others. I can see from your replies to others that there is no arguing with you in a way where everyone respectfully disagrees, so I agree with Sioux-Cia.....ignoring now. Quote
Sioux_Yeah_Yeah Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I'm not putting this hermit guy on ignore... I wanna see how long it takes for him to answer the questions that have been asked (as opposed to talking crap)... Anyone wanna take bets?! Quote
Chewey Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I'm not putting this hermit guy on ignore... I wanna see how long it takes for him to answer the questions that have been asked (as opposed to talking crap)... Anyone wanna take bets?! He's good for comic relief. Quote
Goon Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 I'm not putting this hermit guy on ignore... I wanna see how long it takes for him to answer the questions that have been asked (as opposed to talking crap)... Anyone wanna take bets?! No because you will win. Quote
hermit Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 I'll try a third time, hermit. Here's my question. If they chose to use the name that is their right. You just made the point for me. If the Native Americans wish to use the names of either Indians, Warriors, or whatever that is their right becaue it is who they are or were. Where as since you are not members of the Lakota or Dakota Nations then you do not have the right to use their name because it does not belong to you. You people are members of the Fighting Sioux Tribe which is not a recognized tribe by the Federal Government. I do not see you tribe at the Pow Wow this week. My error for equating people here with midgets. I put down the midgets who are on a higher evolutionary scale then you people. At least they have cognitive abilities. It is normal for people like you to put what they do not wish to hear on ignore. Head up the as& is easier to deal with than reality. When cherished values are threatened find a scapegoat to blame. Quote
Chewey Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 If they chose to use the name that is their right. You just made the point for me. If the Native Americans wish to use the names of either Indians, Warriors, or whatever that is their right becaue it is who they are or were. Where as since you are not members of the Lakota or Dakota Nations then you do not have the right to use their name because it does not belong to you. You people are members of the Fighting Sioux Tribe which is not a recognized tribe by the Federal Government. I do not see you tribe at the Pow Wow this week. My error for equating people here with midgets. I put down the midgets who are on a higher evolutionary scale then you people. At least they have cognitive abilities. It is normal for people like you to put what they do not wish to hear on ignore. Head up the as& is easier to deal with than reality. When cherished values are threatened find a scapegoat to blame. Are you serious? Scapegoating? You did not see us at the Pow Wow (Yes, even though I'm white I know this is to be capitalized because it's sacred which is why no alcohol is allowed) this week? First, you don't know who we are so you would not have known if you had seen any of us would you? Your argument is rife with contradictions. You must not have heard all of the yammering by RHHT and David Gipp and others of their ilk that the "Sioux" term is "racist, degrading, insulting, hostile and abusive." It means, incorrectly but according to them, "snake" and was concocted by the enemies as a term of derision. All of this, but it is great for RHHT and David Gipp, etc. to use the name=CONTRADICTION #1. Side B -- "We are Indians and are of that RACE so we get to use the name, even though we denounce it publicly as racist. You are white people and are not of the RACE so you do not get to use the name and if YOU do use it, we'll label you as racists for using a name that we deem as racist." This is an argument of justification based on RACE and is a RACIST standpoint and anyone who argues its validity is a RACIST. Using RACE as a basis to grant some people one thing and deny others that same thing is a RACE-based classification. Using the argument that "we can employ RACIST arguments/positions because we've been persecuted for centuries" is neither logical nor intellectually honest. Using your logic, white men circa 1870 to 1920 could have said "we have always had the ability to vote. Because we are white and have always had the ability to vote and you're not white or not a man and have not had the right to vote, we're going to deny you the right to vote." Make sense? Nope. Neither do your arguments wash logically or intellectually. They are nothing more than RACE-based, emotional, angry blather. I guess the coin of the realm in PC-land which you, being the intellectually insecure hermit that you are (i.e. using the insensitive term "mental midget", according to the PC bible, i.e. referring to others with opposing viewpoints as lacking cognitive abilities) have displayed here is this: "We can employ and argue contradictory, RACIST, and illogical positions to justify what we want without challenge. If you disagree, you lack intellectual faculties, you're racist, etc." It is disturbing that adults can employ this kind of twisted thinking but I guess that's the influence of a lot of the so-called "educators." Incidentally, I've probably been to more Pow Wows, during the years that I sold concessions, than you have. Quote
dagies Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 I can see the side of the argument that says "Sioux" is the name of their people and so others don't have the right to use. I don't necessarily agree completely with the statement, but I can understand that side of the argument. That said, hermit, you are wrong. UND was given permission to use the name long ago. UND has used that name for a very long time, and now it has become UND's identity, at least from an athletic and nickname perspective. UND has every right to use that. A somewhat reasonable compromise has been reached on the public opinion impass, and that is to allow the Tribes to decide if they will allow UND to continue to use the nickname or not. The largest difference of opinion now is whether that decision should be left up to a few in the Tribal Councils who may have their own personal agendas, or whether that opinion should be decided by a vote of the Tribes at large. I think any other argument about the meaning of the word Sioux being derogatory is moot considering the Tribes have used that name for so long themselves. Any argument that says UND doesn't have the right to use the name is also moot, being it was given to UND to use. The only argument is whether or not it is acceptable for that name to be removed by forces outside of UND decades after UND began to use it and received permission to do so. Quote
MafiaMan Posted April 18, 2008 Author Posted April 18, 2008 If they chose to use the name that is their right. You just made the point for me. If the Native Americans wish to use the names of either Indians, Warriors, or whatever that is their right becaue it is who they are or were. Where as since you are not members of the Lakota or Dakota Nations then you do not have the right to use their name because it does not belong to you. You people are members of the Fighting Sioux Tribe which is not a recognized tribe by the Federal Government. I do not see you tribe at the Pow Wow this week. My error for equating people here with midgets. I put down the midgets who are on a higher evolutionary scale then you people. At least they have cognitive abilities. It is normal for people like you to put what they do not wish to hear on ignore. Head up the as& is easier to deal with than reality. When cherished values are threatened find a scapegoat to blame. You didn't answer the question at all. So you're saying it's OK for Italians to refer to themselves as 'dagos' or 'guidos' but if someone else DARE says that to an Italian, it calls for an a**-kicking of great proportions. I didn't know that Native people owned exclusive rights to saying words like Indian, Warriors, or Sioux. Interesting concept. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.