Goon Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 I've said this before more times than I can count, but I'll have to keep saying it until people get the point. This isn't about liberals, it's about PC zealots. I'm a proud liberal who is disgusted by conservative political propaganda, but very much in favor of keeping the Fighting Sioux name. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but those of us who support the name are not all a bunch of judgemental trigger-happy conservative religious zealots. We are merely people who support the name. First off you forgot NHL Goon and fight loving. Nobody said we were lumping you with the PC zealots who want to change the name, I.E. Russel Means et al_____insert your anti-name activist here. I am blaiming this silly issue on Poltical Correctness run amuck on EXTREMIST LIBERAL PC ZEALOTS, you are probably not an extremist. You can not blame this issue on anyone else, there is no dancing around it. Just like Dems are LIBERAL P.C. Zealots, Not all conservative love guns, or George W. Bush, or listen to Rush Limbaugh. I think he is the less of two evils. Frankly I doubt the three members are team North Dakota are either, but it's time they stepped up to the plate and got off the fence. If they can bring in UAV's they can stand up to the NCAA in my opinion.
oldralph Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 I am blaiming this silly issue on Poltical Correctness run amuck on EXTREMIST LIBERAL PC ZEALOTS, you are probably not an extremist. I'd agree, DaveK is probably not an extremest but Goon sounds an awful lot like one....on the other side. Far left or far right, we'd be better of without both. What ever happened to compromise...whatever happened to a middle ground? Why do we only hear from the voices on the far side (liberal or conservative)? Whenever either bashes the other its always those on the total opposite end of the spectrum doing the bashing. Here we are again, the mostly silent majority being lumped in with all the rest of the bleeting "sheep".
oldralph Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 Goon in bold: I have informed myself on the issues, And what did you tell yourself? so you just did the same thing you accussed me of doing, you just tried to pigeon hole me. I'm glad you picked up on that First off you would have better off not responding. Secondly? I haven't seen one conservative voice calling for the name to be changed. And you claim conservatives are not sheep? 98.5 percent of the people are that are spealing out against the FIGHTING SIOUX name are a hand wringing left leaning liberal activists, many of them college professors with nothing better to do with their time. There are far more pressing concerns in this country that a name for a sports team. I can't argue with the college professor statement...sure glad I personally don't know any of them...but if there are more pressing conerns in this country than the name of a sports team, why do you keep insisting the Congressional and Senate delegation get involved? Surely they must have more important things to do...like clean up the mess Bush has made (ouch). Here is my solution, the problem people that are dems or people of the left leaning persuasion need to stand up to the fall leaning activists of democratic party there aren't a enough Zoe Millers around. Right here at home our own Byron Dorgans sits around idely letting the far left extremes of the Fighting Sioux nick name debeat define playing field and the debate. Why do you think that is? Byron is worried about losing votes. Until you guys tell these people to stop pushing these politically correct agendas down the rest of our throats, they are going to define the left wing political agenda. They aren't going to listen to us. Thank God we aren't depending on Goon for solutions. Hey, I do stand up against those on the far left...they are idiots. And I also can't stand those on the far right, they might be even dumber; but its really too close to call Meet me in the middle Goon and we'll have something to talk about. Until then, please keep the use of the word 'Liberal" where it belongs....not attached to EXTREME PC ZEALOTS, because being liberal really has little to do with THEIR stance.
hockeyfan Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 I am a Democrat, liberal and graduate of UND and I say................................don't ever give up the fight to keep the Fighting Sioux name.
HockeyMom Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 I am a Democrat, liberal and graduate of UND and I say................................don't ever give up the fight to keep the Fighting Sioux name. Same here.
HockeyMom Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 eductate Sorry, DaveK, but that's just plain funny.
Goon Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 I was hoping that by making a sweeping generalization of conservatives, you would realize how ignorant it was of you to make a sweeping generalization of liberals. Perhaps you missed the point. What I was trying to eductate you on is the fact that not all liberals are in favor of changing the Fighting Sioux nickname. Let's stop using the word liberal within the context of this subject, okay? Call them extremist PC zealots, but leave liberal out of it. To lump us in with those nutcases gives all liberals a bad name, just as it gives all conservatives a bad name to lump them in with racists or any other extremist group. Fair enough? Dave_K do you always have to get the last word?
fee_0405 Posted April 26, 2007 Posted April 26, 2007 This whole thing seems to be caused by liberalism. There is no denying that. It's spearheaded by a few zealots. I would not accuse liberals of being anymore radical than a conservative, but liberalism seems much more scary. This is the same movement that applauds people like Rosie O'Donnell for bashing troops in Iraq. It's also the same movement that teachers teach as being the "new" progessive way. This is the same movement that permits (without much reaction from the media) US soldiers to be burned in effigy in Washington a month ago. I think liberals on the whole are so poorly represented because you guys have so many different kinds of wackos on the extreme left that aren't really comparable to the wackos on the right (not that they aren't just as stupid or dangerous).
Goon Posted April 26, 2007 Posted April 26, 2007 This whole thing seems to be caused by liberalism. There is no denying that. It's spearheaded by a few zealots. I would not accusing liberals of being anymore radical than a conservative, but liberalism seems much more scary. This is the same movement that applauds people like Rosie O'Donnell for bashing troops in Iraq. It's also the same movement that teachers teach as being the "new" progessive way. This is the same movement that permits (without much reaction from the media) US soldiers to be burned in effigy in Washington a month ago. I think liberals on the whole are so poorly represented because you guys have so many different kinds of wackos on the extreme left that aren't really comparable to the wackos on the right (not that they aren't just as stupid or dangerous). Thank you very much, you just proved my point. Drum roll please.
oldralph Posted April 26, 2007 Posted April 26, 2007 Thank you very much, you just proved my point. Drum roll please. Ummm, where's the proof? All I hear ia another conservative's opinion. Rosie O'Donnell? Who cares! Yeah, she represents the liberals...I think I may have voted for her And as far as proving your point Goon....I didn't know you really had one. At least, I was unable to glean one out of all the BS you write. I believe this is the real problem in this country...the extremests point to the extremests on the other side and vice versa as being representative of what most of that party's constituent's believe. Like not supporting the military...yeah, they are all republicans serving over in Irag, I'm sure no democrat's kids are over there so I guess they don't need to support them, right? How stupid. God help those of us caught between these two diametrically opposed extremist views...sounds a little like the Suinies and the Sheites (sp?) if you ask me. And as far a allowing US Soldiers to be burned in effigy (no I don't support it) it is not the liberal movement that allows it, it's our constitution....deal with it...we're a free people to express as we desire even if we don't agree with it. And no I don't believe those fighting in Iraq ever really had a reason to be there...those poor soldiers are the result of our nations worst natural disaster....W. Need I say more. But I don't blame it all on Bush, but going into Iraq without a plan I sure do (I was all for going into Afganistan as that is where the people that pulled off 911 were supposed to be holed up). W surrounded himself with incompetants and bad advice lead to bad decisions; but you'll never get them to say they made a mistake. How we got from 911 to Bagdad is still beyond my comprehension. But you're free to buy into that pile of crap they gave as reasons, this is after all America. Good lord we're getting off track here....bottom line is this conservative liberal (yes, fiscally conservative-something W knows nothing about - and socially liberal) says keep the name and keep the logo and long live the Fighting Sioux....and may next year bring number 8! Adios until someone insults me again.
Goon Posted April 26, 2007 Posted April 26, 2007 bottom line is this conservative liberal (yes, fiscally conservative-something W knows nothing about - and socially liberal) says keep the name and keep the logo and long live the Fighting Sioux....and may next year bring number 8! Adios until someone insults me again. Blah, blah, blah Did you want to touch on alternative fuels or recycling while your at it. I think you might want to point your comments at fee0445.
oldralph Posted April 26, 2007 Posted April 26, 2007 Blah, blah, blah Did you want to touch on alternative fuels or recycling while your at it. I think you might want to point your comments at fee0445. Now there's an intelligent comeback.... And if you pull your head out and look up you might see that fee0405 was included in the quote
Recommended Posts