PhillySioux Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Of course! Just like the SBHE is accusing the legislature and the people (16,000 of them) of a power grab. Remember, it's the SBHE that filed the lawsuit over the "power grab"---not the legislature. I think what I said a year ago is holding up well. PhillySiouxMembers827 posts 625] Posted 17 February 2011 - 04:22 PM I've said this before and I'll say it again, Al Carlson does not give two bleeps about the Fighting Sioux nickname. This bill has nothing to do with what is good for UND, UND athletics, UND's fanbase or UND's alumni. This bill has everything to do with his (and his caucus') overall disdain for SBoHE. They will eff with them anytime they can. They now have the constitutional showdown they had wanted to begin with. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 They now have the constitutional showdown they had wanted to begin with. Although I'm not sure Clueless Al is as sure of his "position" as he was last year. And the fact the Supremes snapped this up so quickly may indicate they have been paying attention to this mess and want it resolved for good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 http://www.deseretnews.com/m/article/765553934 If you read Al's concerns I think he answers his own questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 So there is going to be a vote in June asking people of ND if UND should be the Fighting Sioux (undoes the repeal of the law?) and then another vote in _____ asking people of ND if there should be a constitutional amendment requiring UND to be the Fighting Sioux? And these two votes are the results of two petitions that collected enough signatures? Now the state AG asked the state supreme court to rule the law that was repealed in November to be unconstitutional, which is the result of a lawsuit filed by the SBoHE? And just now Carlson's comittee has hired it's own lawyer. Is there somewhere that a lay person can go to just read a straight facts timeline of this issue from the time that the law was enacted to now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/230433/ More comments from Al and some of the committee. They are telling to some degree. They seem to understand the complete mess they have created. At the end of the day, the court has an opportunity (in my view) to deliver a well crafted opinion that pleases both Al and the Board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 http://www.grandfork...icle/id/230433/ More comments from Al and some of the committee. They are telling to some degree. They seem to understand the complete mess they have created. At the end of the day, the court has an opportunity (in my view) to deliver a well crafted opinion that pleases both Al and the Board. I find it interesting that Mr. Durick, while a very fine attorney, has absolutely no connection to UND. That's a rarity in the NoDak bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/352288/group/homepage/ Al Jaeger gets Dorsey attorneys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/352288/group/homepage/ Al Jaeger gets Dorsey attorneys. That ain't cheap. Maybe they can send the bill to Clueless Al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Old news, but now "official" I guess. Some of the comments are pretty interesting. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120227/NEWS/120227030/UI-declines-to-invite-North-Dakota-Fighting-Sioux-over-mascot-flap?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Old news, but now "official" I guess. Some of the comments are pretty interesting. http://www.desmoines...|text|Frontpage How convenient of them not to allow potential Bowl games to get in the way of their nickname policy. Good for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 How convenient of them not to allow potential Bowl games to get in the way of their nickname policy. Good for them. Since there isn't a potential opponent for a bowl game that uses a nickname on the sanctions list I don't see that as a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Since there isn't a potential opponent for a bowl game that uses a nickname on the sanctions list I don't see that as a big deal. Perhaps... but their policy still states as such. Incredibly hypocritical. Either play schools with native names, or don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iluvdebbies Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Saw this on MSN. Should UND change its nickname & logo? No. The university should keep them. 72 % No. The university should keep them. 53,824 votes Yes. The nickname & logo are offensive. 6 % Yes. The nickname & logo are offensive. 4,232 votes I don't care. 22 % I don't care. 16,458 votes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Arena Man Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Saw this on MSN. Should UND change its nickname & logo?No. The university should keep them. 72 % No. The university should keep them. 53,824 votesYes. The nickname & logo are offensive. 6 % Yes. The nickname & logo are offensive. 4,232 votesI don't care. 22 % I don't care. 16,458 votes Saw the same poll on MSN. Did not vote ! Missing a choice "Want them to keep the name but feel it should be dropped for the good of the University" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 "Want them to keep the name but feel it should be dropped for the good of the University" Put me down for that choice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Arena Man Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 That wasn't given as a choice because it is basically the same as : "Yes. The nickname & logo are offensive." can't you ever be POSITIVE about anything. This is the first time I have ever made my opinion known and you MR Dave K are the last person that I want questioning my opinion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 That wasn't given as a choice because it is basically the same as : "Yes. The nickname & logo are offensive." Actually no its not. I don't think its offensive, but its under the NCAA policy that it needs to be changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/45179-Kennedy-Battle-over-North-Dakota-Fighting-Sioux-nickname-ramps-up.html#disqus_thread So ask yourself, Fighting Sioux supporters: What’s the name and logo worth if there’s no one around worthy enough to wear it? So true!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGreyAnt41 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 But either way you're still against keeping the name, which is why there was no need for another different choice in the poll. It's a simple yes or no question, no need to elaborate on why you're saying no. For one reason or the other, either way it is equally insulting to our Native American friends who are fighting so hard to preserve their proud name. Nobody is forcing them to get rid of their name. They can continue to call themselves the Sioux as long as they want. For the good of the university, though, we should stop using it as a nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 But either way you're still against keeping the name, which is why there was no need for another different choice in the poll. It's a simple yes or no question, no need to elaborate on why you're saying no. For one reason or the other, either way it is equally insulting to our Native American friends who are fighting so hard to preserve their proud name. Fail. They didn't frame it as a Yes or No question. The Yes answer included the qualifier "The nickname and Logo are Offensive." Therefore, if I don't believe the nickname to be offensive, but I still feel it should be changed because the University is between a rock and a hard place, I don't have a place to cast my vote. The third option "I don't care" is also not available to me because I do care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 From FoxNews this afternoon: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/happening-now/index.html?playlist_id=86919&intcmp=features#/v/1485354033001/fight-over-fighting-sioux-logo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Lis Wiehl gets it, Mark Eiglarsh doesn't have a clue. It is pretty clear they are both lacking facts around this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsowe Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Thats what happenes when you try to get a complex issue in 3 mins. That guy had no clue and would not give the woman time to talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGreyAnt41 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 That's not what they're fighting for and you know it. They want their name to continue to be associated with the athletic programs at UND. I absolutely know that, but since everybody here is nitpicking about every little thing, you said "fighting to preserve their proud name", and the fact is, their name isn't being taken away from them, and they have no legal ground to argue that somebody is required to call themselves "Sioux". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/45179-Kennedy-Battle-over-North-Dakota-Fighting-Sioux-nickname-ramps-up.html#disqus_thread So true!! yet another article that omits the fact that the spirit lake Sioux are fighting this. Doesn't mention that the spirit lake Sioux have filed a federal lawsuit against the NCAA. doesn't mention that the spirit lake SIOUX are leading the petition efforts. .. oh I know all of you get rid of the name crowd think that the spirit lake Sioux involvement is not newsworthy. and the media just knowS that people don't give a crap about that and that it is not important, but it is a little interesting that this article states that they're going to give a history of everything and even included Ralph Engelstad's logo strategy. they just always forget to include how the native americans are the ones that are spearheading this fight. I know the irony in that is just not interesting right guys?! come on get a f****** clue! it's called propaganda!! go ahead ScottM and Sioux82 telus all how all this stuff shouldn't be in the articles and how its makes perfect sense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.