Obama open to name change for Washington Redskins

[Pogo]

Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said team names such as the Redskins offend "a sizable group of people." He said that while fans get attached to the names, nostalgia may not be a good enough reason to keep them in place.

News from The Associated Press

Uh....hey Cracka Ass.....mind yo own bidness.

If he wants to change the name, tell him to buy the team and change it. Until then, or until he is out of office, he shouldn't express an opinion.

And he never said anything remotely like "I want to change the name" -- that's your own naked dishonesty speaking.

See, this is where you get into trouble. You pick up all sorts of blatantly false crap and run with it, I and others correct you, and it happens that most of your lies are about your obsession, O'bama. Then in your diaper rash that you've been called out on your dishonesty, you sing the blues that I'm "always defending the government". Then when I ask for examples of where I'm doing that, you can't find any. Because they don't exist. I'm defending the facts as you've distorted them. Shift your dishonesty to, say, what kind of tires run best on a Fiat 500, and I'll correct you there. Then you can pretend I'm "always defending Fiat".

 

[Pogo]

The link doesn't have it.....who asked the question and how was it phrased?

Here's the transcript:

Transcript: AP Interview With President Obama | KRWG

Q: If I could just ask you one last question on something that's not politically related, but is getting a lot of attention in Washington -- the name of the Washington Redskins football team. There is a lot of people who say it's time to change the name of that team, considering that it's insulting to many Native Americans. What's your position on that?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, Julie, obviously, people get pretty attached to team names, mascots. I don't think there are any Redskins fans that mean offense. I've got to say that if I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team -- even if it had a storied history -- that was offending a sizeable group of people, I'd think about changing it.

That is not all he said, he thinks every team that has a name that some fake indians find offensive should consider changing their name.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9uqmh0dquw]AP Interview: Obama on Redskins Name Change - YouTube[/ame]

You are truly illiterate. Let's run the transcript from your own link here and bold the parts that you've transmogrified into things they ain't:

>> You know, Julie, obviously, people get pretty attached to team names, mascots. I don't think there are any Redskins fans that mean offense. I've got to say that if I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team -- even if it had a storied history -- that was offending a sizeable group of people, I'd think about changing it.

But I don't want to detract from the wonderful Redskins fans that are here. They love their team, and rightly so -- even though they've been having a pretty tough time this year. But I think -- all these mascots and team names related to Native Americans, Native Americans feel pretty strongly about it. And I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have about these things.

But I don't have -- I don't have a stake in this in the sense that I'm not a part owner of any football team. <<

Let's take it step by step. Pay attention and put the paper airplane down.
- I were the owner of the team: conditional. The speaker is leaving his domain as President and entering the empathic imaginatary role of team owner, which he's not. "If... then".

- ...I'd think about changing it - not "I'd change it", not "they should change it", again if I were the owner I'd think about it. There's your noncommittal. Of course he'd think about it. Anyone would. The present owners have considered it, even if they conclude not to do so. You do understand the difference between considering and acting, no?

This sentence then in effect says.... nothing. "If I were the owner I'd consider it". Well no shit, anyone would if they were the owner, whether they move on to do it or not, because that's where the concern of those concerned is focused. So this is pure politician waffle-speak, acknowledging both sides of a situation while not committing to either. In politician-speak, an essential tool is State-the-Obvious. That's what this is.

- Native Americans feel pretty strongly about it: again, not "I" feel strongly. Acknowledging a group that has a problem, still in the third person. Again, a politician playing both sides so as not to offend one or the other.

And I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have: Not "people's concerns should override the name" but "I don't know". Once again, politician-speak. Giving each side a taste of hope while committing to nothing.

I see nothing about "fake indians" [sic], nothing about "every team that has a name some find offensive", nothing about what any of them "should consider". Nothing.

Class dismissed.

 

[Pogo]

Show me where he makes the official decision as to the name of the Washington football team. Or is he just expressing his opinion?

Really neither. This was one lifted from one answer to one question at the end of an unrelated interview -- none of which (the rest of the interview) is quoted here-- and cherrypicked-stitched together to make it look like something it isn't. Doc laid this all out in post 15, yet on and on it goes as if it's still some kind of legitimate event.

It's like you said Bo - these wags just generate myth-thread after myth-thread in hopes that the unwashed will assume it as true, like the Amber Alerts.

I just love the delicious irony of the OP taking a snippet of a response to a question, completely out of context, and then going "hey Cracka Ass.....mind yo own bidness"

What a maroon.

Another lie filled defense of Obama, what a surprise.

That's not even about O'bama. It's about mythmongering. Look, you're on TV!

I am against any president expressing an opinion like this. His job is to run the fucking country, not stir up hatred.

Because that's your gig, right?

 

[Pogo]

You're against Obama giving his opinion.

No, he's against O'bama answering a reporter's unsolicited question.

Now if somebody else got asked the same question, I doubt there'd even be a thread about it, even given the same answer.

Reporters who ask Obama unsolicited questions get chewed out by The Prickly One. My guess is he knew it was coming, and approved it so he could appear wise to the idiots, like you, who always defend him.

Again, what I "defend" is the English language. Especially when it's getting molested by the message board equivalent of a middle-aged geezer in a raincoat.

 

[Pogo]

And it was still two years before they would have been forced by law. What's your point?

"Forced by law" would be over the top, since there's nothing 'illegal' about a choice of team totem. They could call the team the Washington Wetbacks if they so chose. Then again, denying the use of a stadium on federal property isn't exactly "forced by law". The choice is entirely the team's, being a matter not of law but public taste.

Federal property? Do you think the fucking government owns the entire fucking planet?

Illiteracy knows no bounds...

That property refers to the stadium (in DC) where the Skins were playing at the time, which was on federal land. If you'd read the backstory you'd know that. But nooooo, it's more important to pump that quest for 50,00 posts. Even if they're ignorant.

So because we don't support this ridiculous PC idea of renaming the Redskins means we also would have been against integration?

Not necessarily. But it does indicate you might carry a certain insensitivity.

Because we think honoring the warrior culture by naming teams that engage in ritual combat after them you think we might be insensitive? Is it remotely possible that you might be stupid?

Obviously not but it's clear you're incapable not only of reading but of logical conclusion.
Get someone to read post 66 to you. Slowly.

 

[Stephanie]

anyone care what his opinion is on something so stupid? the man is shallow

 

[Pogo]

Espn had a poll this afternoon (prolly a phone in with no real probative value) where most SUPPORTED changing the name. I was shocked.

"the dysfuncitional useless dipshits." Obviousy not the Senators. The bullets are non-pc.

and how many of those "supporters" are just Eagles, Giants and Cowjerks fans wanting to screw over the Skins?

Believe me, Iggles fans don't care about the Skins. They're fun to beat up. We wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Dot Com]

Quantum Windbag rarely, IF EVER, admits he's wrong. Votes rw too What a maroon.

 

[Kondor3]

Offends a sizable group of people?

All-told, Indians (Native Americans) make up .009 (9/10 of 1 percent) of the population, according to the 2010 Census...

And, within the realm of Native Americans, how many are offended by the name of that team?

30%? 50%? 70%? What's the number? How was that number derived? Is it statistically significant?

This is a manufactured Pissy-Pants faux controversy.

The kind that the Uber-Leftists love to grab onto, to foster divisiveness, and exacerbate and inflame, then blame on everyone else...

Before they step in to shove more Political Correctness down the throats of a great many folks of goodwill whom are caught by surprise, by the guilt-tripping and vindictiveness and the pissing and moaning of the 'offended' group and their Uber-Leftist fellow-travelers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was asked a question, he answered it. He gave the most non-committal, safe answer he possibly could have given.

What exactly are you guys "outraged" about?

The most non committal answer would have been saying that as president it isn't his place to say anything.

By the way, how is naming a football team after a group of warriors offensive? Should the Vikings change their name in or not to offends white people? Is calling a team the Packers offensive to meat packers? Or even homosexuals? The Cowboys should change their name too, I am pretty sure cowboys is pretty offensive to the fake Indians that get offended by being honored as warriors.

It isn't. There's nothing "insensitive" about Cleveland Indians or Kansas City Chiefs or Atlanta Braves. Those are all neutral. Naming a team after a racial slur however might be a different kettle of fish. No doubt you in your blithe ignorance would name your team the Jersey Jigaboos, oblivious to the repercussions, and figure that over time people would get used to it. Oh well.

"It isn't his place to say anything" is basically what he did. That's why any observations about concerns that other people have were put in the third person. He doesn't say he himself is offended, but acknowledges that some are. That's the part you'd prefer swept under the rug, eh?

Wait, hang on...

I am pretty sure cowboys is pretty offensive to the fake Indians that get offended by being honored as warriors

So .... you think it was the cowboys who wiped out the Indians?
No wonder you're confuserated.

Apache is a word that means stranger or enemy in Navaho, which makes it a racial slur, yet an entire tribe took it as a badge of honor. Maybe you should stop pretending you have enough brains to argue with Tank.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said team names such as the Redskins offend "a sizable group of people." He said that while fans get attached to the names, nostalgia may not be a good enough reason to keep them in place.

News from The Associated Press

Uh....hey Cracka Ass.....mind yo own bidness.

If he wants to change the name, tell him to buy the team and change it. Until then, or until he is out of office, he shouldn't express an opinion.

And he never said anything remotely like "I want to change the name" -- that's your own naked dishonesty speaking.

See, this is where you get into trouble. You pick up all sorts of blatantly false crap and run with it, I and others correct you, and it happens that most of your lies are about your obsession, O'bama. Then in your diaper rash that you've been called out on your dishonesty, you sing the blues that I'm "always defending the government". Then when I ask for examples of where I'm doing that, you can't find any. Because they don't exist. I'm defending the facts as you've distorted them. Shift your dishonesty to, say, what kind of tires run best on a Fiat 500, and I'll correct you there. Then you can pretend I'm "always defending Fiat".

I actually posted the video of his answer where he said that every team that uses a mascot that some people find offensive should change its name. Yet, for some reason, you take the out of context answer and accuse me of misrepresenting his words.

Then again, you have to defend Obama because the government is always right, and he runs the government, which makes him the high priest of your religion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's the transcript:

Transcript: AP Interview With President Obama | KRWG

That is not all he said, he thinks every team that has a name that some fake indians find offensive should consider changing their name.


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9uqmh0dquw"]AP Interview: Obama on Redskins Name Change - YouTube[/ame]

You are truly illiterate. Let's run the transcript from your own link here and bold the parts that you've transmogrified into things they ain't:

>> You know, Julie, obviously, people get pretty attached to team names, mascots. I don't think there are any Redskins fans that mean offense. I've got to say that if I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team -- even if it had a storied history -- that was offending a sizeable group of people, I'd think about changing it.

But I don't want to detract from the wonderful Redskins fans that are here. They love their team, and rightly so -- even though they've been having a pretty tough time this year. But I think -- all these mascots and team names related to Native Americans, Native Americans feel pretty strongly about it. And I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have about these things.

But I don't have -- I don't have a stake in this in the sense that I'm not a part owner of any football team. <<

Let's take it step by step. Pay attention and put the paper airplane down.
- I were the owner of the team: conditional. The speaker is leaving his domain as President and entering the empathic imaginatary role of team owner, which he's not. "If... then".

- ...I'd think about changing it - not "I'd change it", not "they should change it", again if I were the owner I'd think about it. There's your noncommittal. Of course he'd think about it. Anyone would. The present owners have considered it, even if they conclude not to do so. You do understand the difference between considering and acting, no?

This sentence then in effect says.... nothing. "If I were the owner I'd consider it". Well no shit, anyone would if they were the owner, whether they move on to do it or not, because that's where the concern of those concerned is focused. So this is pure politician waffle-speak, acknowledging both sides of a situation while not committing to either. In politician-speak, an essential tool is State-the-Obvious. That's what this is.

- Native Americans feel pretty strongly about it: again, not "I" feel strongly. Acknowledging a group that has a problem, still in the third person. Again, a politician playing both sides so as not to offend one or the other.

And I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have: Not "people's concerns should override the name" but "I don't know". Once again, politician-speak. Giving each side a taste of hope while committing to nothing.

I see nothing about "fake indians" [sic], nothing about "every team that has a name some find offensive", nothing about what any of them "should consider". Nothing.

Class dismissed.

The reason I posted the video is that the transcript is incomplete.

Please, feel free to use an incomplete transcript to prove he didn't say what the video clearly shows him saying, it makes my point for me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Forced by law" would be over the top, since there's nothing 'illegal' about a choice of team totem. They could call the team the Washington Wetbacks if they so chose. Then again, denying the use of a stadium on federal property isn't exactly "forced by law". The choice is entirely the team's, being a matter not of law but public taste.

Federal property? Do you think the fucking government owns the entire fucking planet?

Illiteracy knows no bounds...

That property refers to the stadium (in DC) where the Skins were playing at the time, which was on federal land. If you'd read the backstory you'd know that. But nooooo, it's more important to pump that quest for 50,00 posts. Even if they're ignorant.

FedEx Field, believe it or not, is not in DC, and is not fucking owned by the federal government. Once again, that I am not the one with the comprehension problem here.

But thanks for making my point that you think the government owns the entire fucking planet.

Not necessarily. But it does indicate you might carry a certain insensitivity.

Because we think honoring the warrior culture by naming teams that engage in ritual combat after them you think we might be insensitive? Is it remotely possible that you might be stupid?

Obviously not but it's clear you're incapable not only of reading but of logical conclusion.
Get someone to read post 66 to you. Slowly.

This from the guy that doesn't know that the federal government doesn't own Maryland.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Offends a sizable group of people?

All-told, Indians (Native Americans) make up .009 (9/10 of 1 percent) of the population, according to the 2010 Census...

And, within the realm of Native Americans, how many are offended by the name of that team?

30%? 50%? 70%? What's the number? How was that number derived? Is it statistically significant?

This is a manufactured Pissy-Pants faux controversy.

The kind that the Uber-Leftists love to grab onto, to foster divisiveness, and exacerbate and inflame, then blame on everyone else...

Before they step in to shove more Political Correctness down the throats of a great many folks of goodwill whom are caught by surprise, by the guilt-tripping and vindictiveness and the pissing and moaning of the 'offended' group and their Uber-Leftist fellow-travelers.

You are way too high, less than 10% of people who self identify as Native Americans want the team to change its name.

 

[JoeB131]

You really think that oppossing teams care what the Redskins are called?

I know a few Bears fans who call them "the Foreskins".

No, But I know opposing fans would vote to change the name in an ESPN poll just to piss off Redskin fans.

Yeah, it's impossible to believe that a name that was used against a people who suffered genocide MIGHT be offensive to decent folks.

Hey, I hear they are going to make the Hamburg JudenSchwein change their name, too!

 

[R.C. Christian]

Offends a sizable group of people?

All-told, Indians (Native Americans) make up .009 (9/10 of 1 percent) of the population, according to the 2010 Census...

And, within the realm of Native Americans, how many are offended by the name of that team?

30%? 50%? 70%? What's the number? How was that number derived? Is it statistically significant?

This is a manufactured Pissy-Pants faux controversy.

The kind that the Uber-Leftists love to grab onto, to foster divisiveness, and exacerbate and inflame, then blame on everyone else...

Before they step in to shove more Political Correctness down the throats of a great many folks of goodwill whom are caught by surprise, by the guilt-tripping and vindictiveness and the pissing and moaning of the 'offended' group and their Uber-Leftist fellow-travelers.

You are way too high, less than 10% of people who self identify as Native Americans want the team to change its name.

As part injun, I concur. As full injun my estranged wife and Choctaw daughter also concur.

 

[Pogo]

If he wants to change the name, tell him to buy the team and change it. Until then, or until he is out of office, he shouldn't express an opinion.

And he never said anything remotely like "I want to change the name" -- that's your own naked dishonesty speaking.

See, this is where you get into trouble. You pick up all sorts of blatantly false crap and run with it, I and others correct you, and it happens that most of your lies are about your obsession, O'bama. Then in your diaper rash that you've been called out on your dishonesty, you sing the blues that I'm "always defending the government". Then when I ask for examples of where I'm doing that, you can't find any. Because they don't exist. I'm defending the facts as you've distorted them. Shift your dishonesty to, say, what kind of tires run best on a Fiat 500, and I'll correct you there. Then you can pretend I'm "always defending Fiat".

I actually posted the video of his answer where he said that every team that uses a mascot that some people find offensive should change its name. Yet, for some reason, you take the out of context answer and accuse me of misrepresenting his words.

Then again, you have to defend Obama because the government is always right, and he runs the government, which makes him the high priest of your religion.

You're a bald faced liar. You posted no such thing. There is no such quote in there. None.

I believe your definition was "stupid lying fuckface". Do yourself a favour and go learn to read, because you have the comprehensional capacity of a turnip. Only less clever.

 

[Pogo]

Offends a sizable group of people?

All-told, Indians (Native Americans) make up .009 (9/10 of 1 percent) of the population, according to the 2010 Census...

And, within the realm of Native Americans, how many are offended by the name of that team?

30%? 50%? 70%? What's the number? How was that number derived? Is it statistically significant?

This is a manufactured Pissy-Pants faux controversy.

The kind that the Uber-Leftists love to grab onto, to foster divisiveness, and exacerbate and inflame, then blame on everyone else...

Before they step in to shove more Political Correctness down the throats of a great many folks of goodwill whom are caught by surprise, by the guilt-tripping and vindictiveness and the pissing and moaning of the 'offended' group and their Uber-Leftist fellow-travelers.

Ah but your math is off my friend, because it somehow assumes that only those with Indian blood are capable of being offended. Remember how you wouldn't go into that restaurant called The Lazy Wetback? OK then, that changes the number considerably.

Besides... "sizeable" is a (deliberately) vague qualification.

 

[Kondor3]

Offends a sizable group of people?

All-told, Indians (Native Americans) make up .009 (9/10 of 1 percent) of the population, according to the 2010 Census...

And, within the realm of Native Americans, how many are offended by the name of that team?

30%? 50%? 70%? What's the number? How was that number derived? Is it statistically significant?

This is a manufactured Pissy-Pants faux controversy.

The kind that the Uber-Leftists love to grab onto, to foster divisiveness, and exacerbate and inflame, then blame on everyone else...

Before they step in to shove more Political Correctness down the throats of a great many folks of goodwill whom are caught by surprise, by the guilt-tripping and vindictiveness and the pissing and moaning of the 'offended' group and their Uber-Leftist fellow-travelers.

Ah but your math is off my friend, because it somehow assumes that only those with Indian blood are capable of being offended. Remember how you wouldn't go into that restaurant called The Lazy Wetback? OK then, that changes the number considerably.

Besides... "sizeable" is a (deliberately) vague qualification.

But that 9/10 of 1% are the only true stakeholders...

It is a component of their Identity, in a historical context, and their offense (or lack thereof) is the only true emotional stake in the game...

If a majority of Natives are not offended, in this context, then the Inner Stakeholders in the matter have already settled the matter...

However... ignoring the nature and preferences of the true emotional stakeholder(s) in the matter for a moment, as a matter of expediency...

In order to impose an arbitrary change-the-name mindset upon others - in the name of non-stakeholders being offended - then, clearly, we must measure the scale and scope of the offense, to gauge whether it is sufficiently real and widespread so as to warrant such a break with this sports club's tradition...

So...

Then let's put it to a vote...

Votes to be done with consumer dollars...

Polling cycle... 2013 thru 2015 seasons...

Three (3) seasons, post-surfacing of the controversy...

Enough to make it statistically valid and long enough to give both sides in the controversy the time to pitch their side to the general public...

If, by the end of that time, the three-(3)-year average for ticket-sales are down and if the three-(3)-year average for merchandising sales are down, vis-a-vis the previous three-(3)-year cycle, then change the name...

And, if it's too close to call, then, we can even resort to a public-opinion poll, within the Washington DC area, as a tie-breaker, if necessary...

Such an approach is an objective and certain gauge of the potential necessity of change; with no predetermined objective in-mind, and with no predetermined outcome pre-positioned to materialize...

It gives both sides a chance to make their case, and to muster and demonstrate their strength, in support-for or opposition-to such a change...

Ready... set... go...

 

[Pogo]

Offends a sizable group of people?

All-told, Indians (Native Americans) make up .009 (9/10 of 1 percent) of the population, according to the 2010 Census...

And, within the realm of Native Americans, how many are offended by the name of that team?

30%? 50%? 70%? What's the number? How was that number derived? Is it statistically significant?

This is a manufactured Pissy-Pants faux controversy.

The kind that the Uber-Leftists love to grab onto, to foster divisiveness, and exacerbate and inflame, then blame on everyone else...

Before they step in to shove more Political Correctness down the throats of a great many folks of goodwill whom are caught by surprise, by the guilt-tripping and vindictiveness and the pissing and moaning of the 'offended' group and their Uber-Leftist fellow-travelers.

Ah but your math is off my friend, because it somehow assumes that only those with Indian blood are capable of being offended. Remember how you wouldn't go into that restaurant called The Lazy Wetback? OK then, that changes the number considerably.

Besides... "sizeable" is a (deliberately) vague qualification.

But that 9/10 of 1% are the only true stakeholders...

It is a component of their Identity, in a historical context, and their offense (or lack thereof) is the only true emotional stake in the game...

If a majority of Natives are not offended, in this context, then the Inner Stakeholders in the matter have already settled the matter...

However... ignoring the nature and preferences of the true emotional stakeholder(s) in the matter for a moment, as a matter of expediency...

In order to impose an arbitrary change-the-name mindset upon others - in the name of non-stakeholders being offended - then, clearly, we must measure the scale and scope of the offense, to gauge whether it is sufficiently real and widespread so as to warrant such a break with this sports club's tradition...

So...

Then let's put it to a vote...

Votes to be done with consumer dollars...

Polling cycle... 2013 thru 2015 seasons...

Three (3) seasons, post-surfacing of the controversy...

Enough to make it statistically valid and long enough to give both sides in the controversy the time to pitch their side to the general public...

If, by the end of that time, the three-(3)-year average for ticket-sales are down and if the three-(3)-year average for merchandising sales are down, vis-a-vis the previous three-(3)-year cycle, then change the name...

And, if it's too close to call, then, we can even resort to a public-opinion poll, within the Washington DC area, as a tie-breaker, if necessary...

Such an approach is an objective and certain gauge of the potential necessity of change; with no predetermined objective in-mind, and with no predetermined outcome pre-positioned to materialize...

It gives both sides a chance to make their case, and to muster and demonstrate their strength, in support-for or opposition-to such a change...

Ready... set... go...

You're in effect calling for a (commercial) plebiscite. Sure, that's fair -- in principle. In practice it would be impossible to isolate the root causes of said commercial trends. Moreover, and more concerningly, you're leaning back again to that basis that "social offense is OK as long as it sells".

Your original point at the top though, suggests a basis that it's impossible to take offense by proxy. I don't think it is. And neither do you if you won't patronize The Lazy Wetback on principle rather than on genealogy.