The Sanctions and Punishments Have Arrived

[jodcon]

Don't confuse him ...

You're right.

But this is how I feel....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=K7luMp6lb9M

[GeauxSioux]

You're right.

But this is how I feel....

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=K7luMp6lb9M

I never saw the movie, but that is perfect.

[Chewey]

I thought we were pinning our hopes on the success of the SL vs NC$$ lawsuit?? Although I suppose that is equivalent to giving up any legitimate attempt to save the name. Seriously though, take your time and come up with a well thought out answer for this..... What does the success of the petition process have to do with the success of the SL lawsuit??? Why is it necessary for UND athletics to be punished in the short term, in order to save the name in the long term (as you people assume SL will be victorious in their lawsuit)

Answer is simple: In 2 or 3 years if, and it's a big if, SL wins the lawsuit, Shaft/Kelley/et al indicate that too much money was spent changing the name, we don't want to go back to dealing with that "controversial issue" (translation: we're too big of weenies to tolerate whining from a select few), etc.

Note to Shaft, et al: Come out publicly in favor of retaining the nickname and logo should SL prevail.

No one other than the NCAA is doing anything vis-a-vis UND athletics. Direct your question to the NCAA, if you please. Classic terroristic threats. Typical low-core aggressive tactics.

[Fetch]

So really there can't be a Fighting Sioux Last Stand with real Leaders doing what can be done - I know you all think there is no hope

But what if we demand the Washington Leaders find a way to get the ncaa - tribes - UND - Big Sky - Courts to resolve this - without Damage to UND

Can one of you legal brainiacs get a online letter & petition together for us to sign ?

If this is way beyond the realm of possibility at this time (sad if it is) - I say pass the referral & wait out SL chances - wear generic uniforms at ncaa tournaments & keep the name

But I'd sure like to see a united effort from all (SL & all who claim they think this is wrong & say they wish it would not happen)

This is not going away nicely but has every effort to resolve it peaceably civilly been done ?

[UNDBIZ]

Answer is simple: In 2 or 3 years if, and it's a big if, SL wins the lawsuit, Shaft/Kelley/et al indicate that too much money was spent changing the name, we don't want to go back to dealing with that "controversial issue" (translation: we're too big of weenies to tolerate whining from a select few), etc.

Note to Shaft, et al: Come out publicly in favor of retaining the nickname and logo should SL prevail.

No one other than the NCAA is doing anything vis-a-vis UND athletics. Direct your question to the NCAA, if you please. Classic terroristic threats. Typical low-core aggressive tactics.

So the success of the petition process has no effect on the success of the litigation. You're saying it has to be done to prevent something from happening 3 years from now (look who's screaming "what if" now ). So, the obvious question here is, why not wait until then??? Why must UND be punished in the short term on its way out of transition when the athletics department is the most vulnerable? I'm just trying to understand why you people (who say you care about UND) are doing this.

[Fetch]

Oh ....................................

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

and then ? I like sheen better

[82SiouxGuy]

So really there can't be a Fighting Sioux Last Stand with real Leaders doing what can be done - I know you all think there is no hope

But what if we demand the Washington Leaders find a way to get the ncaa - tribes - UND - Big Sky - Courts to resolve this - without Damage to UND

Can one of you legal brainiacs get a online letter & petition together for us to sign ?

If this is way beyond the realm of possibility at this time (sad if it is) - I say pass the referral & wait out SL chances - wear generic uniforms at ncaa tournaments & keep the name

But I'd sure like to see a united effort from all (SL & all who claim they think this is wrong & say they wish it would not happen)

This is not going away nicely but has every effort to resolve it peaceably civilly been done ?

You do realize what happened at Custer's Last Stand? No one on Custer's side survived. That's what happened in most last stands. Another example is the Alamo. No one survived. That is not a good result for a Fighting Sioux last stand, and that is what many of us want to prevent. But that is what would probably happen with a Fighting Sioux last stand, the athletic department as we know it may not survive.

The time for the effort you want was several years ago. That should have happened before the settlement. Spirit Lake wasn't interested at that time. Now the NCAA isn't interested. Standing Rock never was interested. There is ZERO chance of a combined effort by all parties to reach a compromise. It's a pipe dream, which is different than a pipe ceremony.

[Chewey]

So the success of the petition process has no effect on the success of the litigation. You're saying it has to be done to prevent something from happening 3 years from now (look who's screaming "what if" now ). So, the obvious question here is, why not wait until then??? Why must UND be punished in the short term on its way out of transition when the athletics department is the most vulnerable? I'm just trying to understand why you people (who say you care about UND) are doing this.

There's no "what if" going on at all. It is a certainty right now - the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo (scrubbing/expunging, etc.). Do you really think that Shaft, Kelley would bring the nickname back in 2 or 3 years after "spending all that money" to retire it? Perhaps the legislation should have provided that the nickname and logo will be reinstated in addition to having the 3 year waiting period. Pretty simple stuff, really. Respect the wishes of the SL and those on SR who are being denied a vote. Your perspective of who's hurting UND is misplaced.

[ScottM]

But what if we demand the Washington Leaders find a way to get the ncaa - tribes - UND - Big Sky - Courts to resolve this - without Damage to UND

I've always been curious why NoDak's congressional delegation has said nothing about this matter. Not in 2005 and not now. Perhaps if Clueless Al wanted to run for congress, he could "run against the NC$$" and probably have a good chance of winning.

[82SiouxGuy]

Answer is simple: In 2 or 3 years if, and it's a big if, SL wins the lawsuit, Shaft/Kelley/et al indicate that too much money was spent changing the name, we don't want to go back to dealing with that "controversial issue" (translation: we're too big of weenies to tolerate whining from a select few), etc.

Note to Shaft, et al: Come out publicly in favor of retaining the nickname and logo should SL prevail.

No one other than the NCAA is doing anything vis-a-vis UND athletics. Direct your question to the NCAA, if you please. Classic terroristic threats. Typical low-core aggressive tactics.

It's good to see you admit that Spirit Lake is not a lock to win their lawsuit. If the case is completed in 2 or 3 years they can still bring back the name, a new name would not have been put in place. Shaft has publicly said that if Spirit Lake wins the lawsuit and the NCAA policy disappears he would like to bring back the name, but they can't publicly promise that because he can't predict what else might happen between now and then. Who could have predicted all of the strange things that have happened with this issue in just the last year, much less 3 years. Also, several members of the SBoHE will change over time, so I'm sure that no one would promise something that is impossible to predict since we don't know for sure who will even be on the board at that time.

[82SiouxGuy]

There's no "what if" going on at all. It is a certainty right now - the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo (scrubbing/expunging, etc.). Do you really think that Shaft, Kelley would bring the nickname back in 2 or 3 years after "spending all that money" to retire it? Perhaps the legislation should have provided that the nickname and logo will be reinstated in addition to having the 3 year waiting period. Pretty simple stuff, really. Respect the wishes of the SL and those on SR who are being denied a vote. Your perspective of who's hurting UND is misplaced.

Why is it that we are supposed to respect the wishes of the people that agree with you, but you don't have to respect the official viewpoint of a Tribal Government at Standing Rock. Their government worked the way a representative democracy is supposed to work. Residents elect officials to go and make decisions based on what they think is best for the group. The same way that the US government works. That viewpoint deserves some respect also.

[jodcon]

There's no "what if" going on at all. It is a certainty right now - the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo (scrubbing/expunging, etc.). Do you really think that Shaft, Kelley would bring the nickname back in 2 or 3 years after "spending all that money" to retire it? Perhaps the legislation should have provided that the nickname and logo will be reinstated in addition to having the 3 year waiting period. Pretty simple stuff, really. Respect the wishes of the SL and those on SR who are being denied a vote. Your perspective of who's hurting UND is misplaced.

I think virtually everybody would be in favor of reinstating the nickname in the event that SL could actually win their lawsuit, and going without one until that case is settled doesn't bother me or probably anyone else either. As far as "spending all that money", my guess is if the nickname was officially, legally, and without consequences reinstated down the road a few years any request for donations to help with the costs would bring in a flood of money like never seen before.

The only question would be whether or not the SBHE would pull the trigger, unless it would be previously in writing.

[Fetch]

then if it's wait - I say the sanctions are not that big of a deal & might not be noticed at all - Just walking away from the name is not a option & I bet the majority will agree

[82SiouxGuy]

then if it's wait - I say the sanctions are not that big of a deal & might not be noticed at all - Just walking away from the name is not a option & I bet the majority will agree

The sanctions are that big a deal. You just can't comprehend how they will effect UND, and you have already said that you don't care if they hurt UND.

The majority shouldn't have a say in this, just like the majority doesn't get involved in every little decision made by the government. There is a reason that the country was set up as a representative democracy instead of a basic democracy. We pay people pretty well to make tough decisions. They are the ones that should be making this decision because they have much better information than the average person who will often make a decision based on emotion rather than taking the time to get all the information.

[Fetch]

yeah & look how well Wash DC is doing - I understand Republic - But I am glad some States can correct the screw ups politicians make

[82SiouxGuy]

yeah & look how well Wash DC is doing - I understand Republic - But I am glad some States can correct the screw ups politicians make

The states, cities, townships, and pretty much every governmental unit has the same type of representative style of government. Some places, like North Dakota, have added the initiative and referendum. It can be a good tool, but it gets overused because some special interest group gets some wild idea. And less than half of the states use the initiative and referendum.

[UNDBIZ]

There's no "what if" going on at all. It is a certainty right now - the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo (scrubbing/expunging, etc.). Do you really think that Shaft, Kelley would bring the nickname back in 2 or 3 years after "spending all that money" to retire it? Perhaps the legislation should have provided that the nickname and logo will be reinstated in addition to having the 3 year waiting period. Pretty simple stuff, really. Respect the wishes of the SL and those on SR who are being denied a vote. Your perspective of who's hurting UND is misplaced.

So based on your post about the SL lawsuit, it would appear you don't think the NC$$ policy will be changing any time soon. Do you believe the sanctions won't hurt UND, or do you not care about UND?? I'm focusing my questions on you rather than the other "save the name" posters because you seem to give more thought to your replies.

[Fetch]

Yeah yeah yeah I have done & forgot more of that than you haved lived thru - did you read it in a book at UND

[UNDBIZ]

Yeah yeah yeah I have done & forgot more of that than you haved lived thru - did you read it in a book at UND

Every comment made just proves my point.

[Chewey]

The sanctions are that big a deal. You just can't comprehend how they will effect UND, and you have already said that you don't care if they hurt UND.

The majority shouldn't have a say in this, just like the majority doesn't get involved in every little decision made by the government. There is a reason that the country was set up as a representative democracy instead of a basic democracy. We pay people pretty well to make tough decisions. They are the ones that should be making this decision because they have much better information than the average person who will often make a decision based on emotion rather than taking the time to get all the information.

No. Bull. And, what are you smoking? Where a representative government does not follow the will of the people who sent them there, that's problematic. If it's representative government, then put into action the wishes of the people you represent who are asking you to do what you said you'd do which is listen to them and represent their interests. Representative democracy, so-called, does not mean that someone gets elected and then disses the people who sent him or her there and simply says "I know better than you and, by the way, be sure to vote for me next time too." Why do you think there are constitutional amendments for this or that or why there had to be one in Minnesota to subsidize "nature" and the park system? Majority of Minnesotans wanted it but the legislature did not listen so guess what happens - a constitutional amendment.

Don't even start about us paying people well to make tough decisions and about them having better information than the average plebescite. They listen to lobbyists, the people who make the highest donations and those who will give them the best press coverage. the reason why all of them come back to their constitutents every so often is to actually give their constituents a false and baseless sense of security that they're actually listening to what they have to say. That's the point of representative democracy: Listen to what your constituents need and want and go to Washington or wherever else and fight for those things. If those things so desired or if those positions are out of line, they fail and die. We do not have "representative democracy" here. Representative democracy is not "you elected me to represent you trust me and I'll go do my job and I will know better than you and you guys just shut up." Rather, people take positions that are important in their area to a bigger area to advocate for them.

I'm a delegate here. You should see how those seeking higher office kiss all of our asses at these events and then practically ignore someone else who would be one of their constituents and who may have concerns to bring up. This little stunt by one of the guys was material in my electing to now support the other guy. I told the first guy that he would not be getting my support and I told him why.

[Siouxperman8]

No. Bull. And, what are you smoking? Where a representative government does not follow the will of the people who sent them there, that's problematic. If it's representative government, then put into action the wishes of the people you represent who are asking you to do what you said you'd do which is listen to them and represent their interests. Representative democracy, so-called, does not mean that someone gets elected and then disses the people who sent him or her there and simply says "I know better than you and, by the way, be sure to vote for me next time too." Why do you think there are constitutional amendments for this or that or why there had to be one in Minnesota to subsidize "nature" and the park system? Majority of Minnesotans wanted it but the legislature did not listen so guess what happens - a constitutional amendment.

Don't even start about us paying people well to make tough decisions and about them having better information than the average plebescite. They listen to lobbyists, the people who make the highest donations and those who will give them the best press coverage. the reason why all of them come back to their constitutents every so often is to actually give their constituents a false and baseless sense of security that they're actually listening to what they have to say. That's the point of representative democracy: Listen to what your constituents need and want and go to Washington or wherever else and fight for those things. If those things so desired or if those positions are out of line, they fail and die. We do not have "representative democracy" here. Representative democracy is not "you elected me to represent you trust me and I'll go do my job and I will know better than you and you guys just shut up." Rather, people take positions that are important in their area to a bigger area to advocate for them.

I'm a delegate here. You should see how those seeking higher office kiss all of our asses at these events and then practically ignore someone else who would be one of their constituents and who may have concerns to bring up. This little stunt by one of the guys was material in my electing to now support the other guy. I told the first guy that he would not be getting my support and I told him why.

Posted 11 February 2012 - 09:26 AM

Siouxperman8, on 10 February 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

I figure that there are 4 groups that signed the petition and are pushing to keep the name. There may be more but here is my list:

• Hockey only crowd - don't care about the university as a whole or the rest of our teams
  
• The anti PC people- Scott Hennen and his stable of neo-cons, they're gonna show the gov't who's boss, problem is the NCAA is a club, not the gov't
  
• Anti UND people - who want to do us harm
  
• Those that don't realize the harm that it will do.
  

Any guesses out there on % of petition signers that fall into each category?

Chewey - I support the petition process and I don't fit into anyone of those groups, especially #2 "neo-con" reference.

ummmmm - your response to this doesn't necessarily jive with your post above

[82SiouxGuy]

No. Bull. And, what are you smoking? Where a representative government does not follow the will of the people who sent them there, that's problematic. If it's representative government, then put into action the wishes of the people you represent who are asking you to do what you said you'd do which is listen to them and represent their interests. Representative democracy, so-called, does not mean that someone gets elected and then disses the people who sent him or her there and simply says "I know better than you and, by the way, be sure to vote for me next time too." Why do you think there are constitutional amendments for this or that or why there had to be one in Minnesota to subsidize "nature" and the park system? Majority of Minnesotans wanted it but the legislature did not listen so guess what happens - a constitutional amendment.

Don't even start about us paying people well to make tough decisions and about them having better information than the average plebescite. They listen to lobbyists, the people who make the highest donations and those who will give them the best press coverage. the reason why all of them come back to their constitutents every so often is to actually give their constituents a false and baseless sense of security that they're actually listening to what they have to say. That's the point of representative democracy: Listen to what your constituents need and want and go to Washington or wherever else and fight for those things. If those things so desired or if those positions are out of line, they fail and die. We do not have "representative democracy" here. Representative democracy is not "you elected me to represent you trust me and I'll go do my job and I will know better than you and you guys just shut up." Rather, people take positions that are important in their area to a bigger area to advocate for them.

I'm a delegate here. You should see how those seeking higher office kiss all of our asses at these events and then practically ignore someone else who would be one of their constituents and who may have concerns to bring up. This little stunt by one of the guys was material in my electing to now support the other guy. I told the first guy that he would not be getting my support and I told him why.

Representatives in a representative democracy are supposed to make decisions based on the best interests of the people they represent, not on the will of the people. As Edmund Burke once said, " Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." We should be paying our representatives for their judgement and expertise, not just to do what people want. If we wanted to make decisions based on the will of the people we could just have everyone vote on everything. Or we could run constant polls and tell our representative to vote on the basis of polls. Neither would be a good way to run a government. As has been pointed out before, the majority doesn't always know what is best. I'm pretty sure that segregation would have been in place a lot longer, at least in Southern states, if the majority made the decision. Civil Rights wouldn't have been passed in 1964. Just a couple of good examples.

Amendments are ways to supplement the every day work of the regular government. They should only be used for very important topics, the Constitution should be the framework of the government and should not be used for minor details. There is a very good reason why most amendments take a super majority for approval. If a super majority is willing to vote for a law, it has a better chance of being a good idea. But even amendments can be mistakes. Have you heard of Prohibition? Turned out to be a bad idea.

It's too bad that you're so cynical about our government. We have a system in place for people to replace elected officials that don't meet their expectations. The system isn't perfect, it's far from it. We also have a problem attracting top quality candidates right now, for a lot of reasons. That doesn't mean the system is bad. It just needs to be improved. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."

[82SiouxGuy]

No. Bull. And, what are you smoking? Where a representative government does not follow the will of the people who sent them there, that's problematic. If it's representative government, then put into action the wishes of the people you represent who are asking you to do what you said you'd do which is listen to them and represent their interests. Representative democracy, so-called, does not mean that someone gets elected and then disses the people who sent him or her there and simply says "I know better than you and, by the way, be sure to vote for me next time too." Why do you think there are constitutional amendments for this or that or why there had to be one in Minnesota to subsidize "nature" and the park system? Majority of Minnesotans wanted it but the legislature did not listen so guess what happens - a constitutional amendment.

Don't even start about us paying people well to make tough decisions and about them having better information than the average plebescite. They listen to lobbyists, the people who make the highest donations and those who will give them the best press coverage. the reason why all of them come back to their constitutents every so often is to actually give their constituents a false and baseless sense of security that they're actually listening to what they have to say. That's the point of representative democracy: Listen to what your constituents need and want and go to Washington or wherever else and fight for those things. If those things so desired or if those positions are out of line, they fail and die. We do not have "representative democracy" here. Representative democracy is not "you elected me to represent you trust me and I'll go do my job and I will know better than you and you guys just shut up." Rather, people take positions that are important in their area to a bigger area to advocate for them.

I'm a delegate here. You should see how those seeking higher office kiss all of our asses at these events and then practically ignore someone else who would be one of their constituents and who may have concerns to bring up. This little stunt by one of the guys was material in my electing to now support the other guy. I told the first guy that he would not be getting my support and I told him why.

By the way, how much did the Founding Fathers trust the will of the people? They set up the Electoral College to elect the President. And they had US Senators elected by the state legislatures rather than by the people (this lasted more than 100 years). The House of Representatives was the only body set up to even be elected by the people.

[UNDBIZ]

No. Bull. And, what are you smoking? Where a representative government does not follow the will of the people who sent them there, that's problematic. If it's representative government, then put into action the wishes of the people you represent who are asking you to do what you said you'd do which is listen to them and represent their interests. Representative democracy, so-called, does not mean that someone gets elected and then disses the people who sent him or her there and simply says "I know better than you and, by the way, be sure to vote for me next time too." Why do you think there are constitutional amendments for this or that or why there had to be one in Minnesota to subsidize "nature" and the park system? Majority of Minnesotans wanted it but the legislature did not listen so guess what happens - a constitutional amendment.

Don't even start about us paying people well to make tough decisions and about them having better information than the average plebescite. They listen to lobbyists, the people who make the highest donations and those who will give them the best press coverage. the reason why all of them come back to their constitutents every so often is to actually give their constituents a false and baseless sense of security that they're actually listening to what they have to say. That's the point of representative democracy: Listen to what your constituents need and want and go to Washington or wherever else and fight for those things. If those things so desired or if those positions are out of line, they fail and die. We do not have "representative democracy" here. Representative democracy is not "you elected me to represent you trust me and I'll go do my job and I will know better than you and you guys just shut up." Rather, people take positions that are important in their area to a bigger area to advocate for them.

I'm a delegate here. You should see how those seeking higher office kiss all of our asses at these events and then practically ignore someone else who would be one of their constituents and who may have concerns to bring up. This little stunt by one of the guys was material in my electing to now support the other guy. I told the first guy that he would not be getting my support and I told him why.

If you think the average person knows better than UND, the SBHE, and the legislature..... I ask you to take one look at DaveK, luapsided, 10898 (or whatever it is), yababy, and Fetch's posts on this board. Although they are the vocal minority on this site, they are not the minority in the state. They spew lies (which they completely believe) at every turn. Also, since you missed it last time:

"So based on your post about the SL lawsuit, it would appear you don't think the NC$$ policy will be changing any time soon. Do you believe the sanctions won't hurt UND, or do you not care about UND?? "

[Hayduke]

By the way, how much did the Founding Fathers trust the will of the people? They set up the Electoral College to elect the President. And they had US Senators elected by the state legislatures rather than by the people (this lasted more than 100 years). The House of Representatives was the only body set up to even be elected by the people.

One of the reasons John Adams feared the "Tyranny of the Majority". This is why the SBoHE needs to be kept separate from other elected offices.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/printthread.php?threadid=161216