Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Predator

House Bill Passes Senate 28-15

Recommended Posts

The Nickname has nothing, I repeat NOTHING, to do with the education of students at UND. Ignorance is not something to be proud of.

I agree, but here you are proving yours post after post. I'm not saying it's an education issue. I'm saying as long as UND is a STATE school, it can be administered by the STATE. You raising the big government argument is the dumbest thing I've seen in this thread, but then you surpassed even yourself by somehow bringing up health care, well done sir.

We're off topic and straying into verboten territory, but it's a good day for North Dakota, and getting better and better as the night passes at The Ralph. Go Sioux!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but here you are proving yours post after post. I'm not saying it's an education issue. I'm saying as long as UND is a STATE school, it can be administered by the STATE. You raising the big government argument is the dumbest thing I've seen in this thread, but then you surpassed even yourself by somehow bringing up health care, well done sir.

We're off topic and straying into verboten territory, but it's a good day for North Dakota, and getting better and better as the night passes at The Ralph. Go Sioux!

Accept in this case, it isn't the state's responsibility to administer UND. That constitutional right belongs to the SBHE. I am simply pointing out the republican hypocrisy of railing against government take-overs with one breath, and taking over a choice that does not belong to them with the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accept in this case, it isn't the state's responsibility to administer UND. That constitutional right belongs to the SBHE. I am simply pointing out the republican hypocrisy of railing against government take-overs with one breath, and taking over a choice that does not belong to them with the other.

It may or may not be their right, that's why there's a judicial branch and checks and balances. And the SBoHE may want to tread carefully no matter how constitutionally sound their position is, I'm not saying the other shoe is dropping, but it's definitely out there. With the momentum behind this issue, I'd be very careful about standing against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may or may not be their right, that's why there's a judicial branch and checks and balances. And the SBoHE may want to tread carefully no matter how constitutionally sound their position is, I'm not saying the other shoe is dropping, but it's definitely out there. With the momentum behind this issue, I'd be very careful about standing against it.

I fully expect the SBoHE to protect its turf on this one. Even if it isn't going to make them popular, they aren't going to let the legislature meddle in higher ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I've always said, "The nickname and logo will be here long after Faison and Kelley are gone."

Those two have to be looking at a different direction, or the majority will make sure they are ousted.

Today, North Dakota said the hell with Political Correct Zealots, and yes, the vocal minority of the minority

does not rule. Spirit Lake's vote does matter, vindication for Eunice Davidson, John Chaske and Standing

Rock's Archie Fool Bear. Today, Majority Rules!

Not sure what you think Kelley and Faison were supposed to do. They work for the SBoHE and were following their direction.

I am guessing that they will change their stance when the board directs them otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect the SBoHE to protect its turf on this one. Even if it isn't going to make them popular, they aren't going to let the legislature meddle in higher ed.

Your probably right. I just don't think "their turf" is as sound of footing as you, and possibly they, think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your probably right. I just don't think "their turf" is as sound of footing as you, and possibly they, think it is.

Hinting at the possibility of a dismantling of the SBoHE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect the SBoHE to protect its turf on this one. Even if it isn't going to make them popular, they aren't going to let the legislature meddle in higher ed.

Maybe. Or maybe the SBoHE might think this is not the issue they want to use to make a stand against the legislature. They may wait for another issue to make their stand where the public wouldn't be overwhelmingly against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. Or maybe the SBoHE might think this is not the issue they want to use to make a stand against the legislature. They may wait for another issue to make their stand where the public wouldn't be overwhelmingly against them.

I agree with you on this one...why piss away all that you have on an issue they stand diametrically opposed to with the public...better to retreat and fight another day...Maybe retreat on this issue and then use this to come back and fight the dissolution of the SBOHE....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect the SBoHE to protect its turf on this one. Even if it isn't going to make them popular, they aren't going to let the legislature meddle in higher ed.

Considering that the legislature is the very body that funds the SBoHE, the SBoHE is just a paper tiger with no real power.

Even if the legislature doesn't move to abolish the SBoHE constitutionally, the legislature has the power to defund the SBoHE including Goetz and Backes' salaries.

The legislature is still angry over the corrupt legacy of John Q Paulsen. Based on what happened, who could blame it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hinting at the possibility of a dismantling of the SBoHE?

There's that, which I would think is unlikely, and the fact that the legislature has a firm grasp on the purse strings. It just may not be wise to oppose a strong majority in both houses and the general public, especially with some polishing up the guillotine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. Or maybe the SBoHE might think this is not the issue they want to use to make a stand against the legislature. They may wait for another issue to make their stand where the public wouldn't be overwhelmingly against them.

I don't think so, this issue is exactly why the legislature shouldn't be involved in higher ed. This bill basically puts UND on the NCAA hostile and abusive list and is at odds with what UND's admin wants to do.

The only way the SBoHE would back off is that if there was a path to keep the name and keep UND off the NCAA hostile and abusive list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's that, which I would think is unlikely, and the fact that the legislature has a firm grasp on the purse strings. It just may not be wise to oppose a strong majority in both houses and the general public, especially with some polishing up the guillotine.

I have a little elbow grease to lend. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so, this issue is exactly why the legislature shouldn't be involved in higher ed. This bill basically puts UND on the NCAA hostile and abusive list and is at odds with what UND's admin wants to do.

The only way the SBoHE would back off is that if there was a path to keep the name and keep UND off the NCAA hostile and abusive list.

...or if they value their jobs and/or budget.

The legislature is already "involved" in higher ed, if UND, NDSU, etc... were private schools, they would be uninvolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the legislature is the very body that funds the SBoHE, the SBoHE is just a paper tiger with no real power.

Even if the legislature doesn't move to abolish the SBoHE constitutionally, the legislature has the power to defund the SBoHE including Goetz and Backes' salaries.

The legislature is still angry over the corrupt legacy of John Q Paulsen. Based on what happened, who could blame it?

They can't do that, it would go against the ND constitution.

5. The legislature shall provide adequate funds for the proper carrying out of the functions and duties of the state board of higher education.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Article_VIII,_North_Dakota_Constitution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like to see Kelley and Faison do is take a position that either believes in and stand on it, these two 'outsiders" should

go into politics, since they both are so competent at speaking from both sides of their mouths, depending on which way the tide

turns. Let's just see if the SBoHE members are so willing to protect their so called turf, I don't see them having the gonads to

take on the majority here. North Dakota has spoken, no to political correctness. I am of sioux blood, my mother is a member of

Spirit Lake, so you folks in here that think you've been speaking for the oppressed Indians, you've been fooling yourselves all along.

Fighting Sioux forever....Been in Grand Forks since 1986, never once witnessed any of the hostility or abuse the Leigh Jennotte types

keep whining about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the legislature is the very body that funds the SBoHE, the SBoHE is just a paper tiger with no real power.

Even if the legislature doesn't move to abolish the SBoHE constitutionally, the legislature has the power to defund the SBoHE including Goetz and Backes' salaries.

The legislature is still angry over the corrupt legacy of John Q Paulsen. Based on what happened, who could blame it?

And if the ND Supreme Court rules against the backwater/bushleague ND Legislature in this case (which is where I think it will ultimately end up), will they defund that part of government too? Or how about the ND Attorney General's office? Just a simple question.

The ND Legislature is full of self-important blowhards who think everybody in the state should genuflect to them on everything and kiss their collective butts on command. If they really cared about keeping the name and logo, they would have taken this up in 2007 before there was a legal settlement with the NCAA. This is nothing more than populist political posturing and does more harm than good. I don't trust Al Carlson's motives on this and neither should anybody else. I really hope this gives us a second chance to save the name, but I have a feeling this will do way more harm than good.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bother with the facts of what the ND Constitution says, it is to difficult to comprehend for most on this board.

Just because the vote didn't go your way today, you resort to belittling others on the board.... impressive! :silly: Maybe you would feel better if you retired your moniker and came up with a new one....Perhaps one without the word "Sioux" in it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what will happen. UND will go back on the sanctions list and every athletic team on campus will pay the price so the hockey team can call itself the Fighting Sioux. I wouldn't really put it past ND's idiot legislature to try and pursue another court case against the NCAA and get hit with punitive damages for re-litigating a settled issue. Think about that nickname supporters, we'll get to keep the nickname, the NCAA can keep us on their sanctions list, and at the end of the day we'll get to write them a big fat check.

I use to try and defend the school when Bison fans said that UND was a hockey only school, but it turns out they were dead right. 90% of this board could really give a !@#$ about anything else at the university other than the hockey team and the nickname and they're proud of it.

As a former athlete, I'm going to say it's a real shame that athletes who show up every day, bust their ass on the practice fields and in the classroom will now get to pay the price so that fat, asshole fans can call themselves the Fighting Sioux while patting themselves on the back for "sticking it to the man".

I'll still support the football team and the rest of the university, but it will be cold day in hell if a single dollar of mine ever goes to supports this asinine nickname fight or your beloved hockey team. As for this board, I'm done with it. It's obviously for Sioux nickname fans and I'm a fan of the entire university so this isn't the place for me. I may stop by and read from time to time if I feel like pounding my head against the wall, but for the most part I'll probably just ignore it.

Enjoy your victory while it lasts, it's only a matter of time before the NCAA goes after UND's golden goose. I, sincerely, hope they do so the rest of you actually have some skin in this game.

Good Bye! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's that, which I would think is unlikely, and the fact that the legislature has a firm grasp on the purse strings. It just may not be wise to oppose a strong majority in both houses and the general public, especially with some polishing up the guillotine.

Best post of the day nominee!

Love to see the anti's squirmming over this. Great day for North Dakota and the Fighting Sioux!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accept in this case, it isn't the state's responsibility to administer UND. That constitutional right belongs to the SBHE. I am simply pointing out the republican hypocrisy of railing against government take-overs with one breath, and taking over a choice that does not belong to them with the other.

How long have you lived in ND? While it doesn't really have anything to do with the way this vote played out, ND has always had a socialist plank in the Republican Party. :sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are they going to vote for next. . .

Who likes chocolate?

Do they like football on monday Night?

Thanks for your opinions, but pretty meaningless and more harmful than good based on previous events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bother with the facts of what the ND Constitution says, it is to difficult to comprehend for most on this board.

Since your comprehension is so superior to the rest of us, what dollar amount do the terms "proper" and "adequate" prescribe? And if you can spare just a bit more of your valuable time to educate us poor, uneducated rubes, who would decide what is "proper" and "adequate"? Pssst, maybe there's some clues to the process in this article.

Yes, the SBoHE seems to have the constitutional right to tell the legislature to go pound sand, but just because you CAN, doesn't mean that you SHOULD. Should the SBoHE spit in the face of North Dakotans on an issue that seems to have enthusiastic and overwhelming support? I would say probably not, but CAN they? Sure, and if/when the constitutional amendment abolishing the SBoHE is on the ballot will voters remember what they chose to do? Will voters be reminded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...