Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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?
More proof that wingnuts HATE freedom of speech.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.
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?
How about, "my position precludes me from commenting in matters such as this"?
That would be a 'presidential' response.
Then ask the sergeant at arms to remove the reporter from the room on account of asking a really stupid question.
Quite some time ago I complied a list of PC team names.
I have forgotten most of them, but here is sampling of NFL PC Nicknames
The New York Persons of Augmented Stature
The New York turbine powered aircraft
The New Orleans Pretty Good People.
The Kansas City Persons of Supreme Authority
St Louis Ovis Aries
Dallas Bovine Range Workers.
Indianapolis Equine Quadripeds
Minnesota Nordic Explorers
there was a discussion on another forum about the term 'cotton pickin'--the poster was speaking to a group and substituted 'cotton pickin' for an expletive.
The consensus was that this is a derogative racial term.
I had to really think about this one. I grew up in the South --my grandparents were farmers, picked cotton, etc. The first image that comes to mind when I hear that term is not of slaves but of white farm families picking cotton.
The poster resolved not to use the word again. I suppose that is wise. It hasn't crossed my mind in years but I am now aware--should the situation arise.
Things that I would never consider 'stereotyping'/for insensitivity against ethnic groups are so numerous.
Honestly, whatever the deep inferences that are so objectionable to 'Redskins'--the mental picture I get is a generic Indian--much the same as when I hear 'Atlanta Braves'. So--either change all the team names or none?
I think the Braves stopped using Chief Nokahoma years ago. Fans still do the chop as far as I know. That could be offensive--the chop--Indians on warpath?
there was a discussion on another forum about the term 'cotton pickin'--the poster was speaking to a group and substituted 'cotton pickin' for an expletive.
The consensus was that this is a derogative racial term.
I had to really think about this one. I grew up in the South --my grandparents were farmers, picked cotton, etc. The first image that comes to mind when I hear that term is not of slaves but of white farm families picking cotton.
The poster resolved not to use the word again. I suppose that is wise. It hasn't crossed my mind in years but I am now aware--should the situation arise.
Things that I would never consider 'stereotyping'/for insensitivity against ethnic groups are so numerous.
Honestly, whatever the deep inferences that are so objectionable to 'Redskins'--the mental picture I get is a generic Indian--much the same as when I hear 'Atlanta Braves'. So--either change all the team names or none?
I think the Braves stopped using Chief Nokahoma years ago. Fans still do the chop as far as I know. That could be offensive--the chop--Indians on warpath?
I have to admit, that interpretation of cottonpickin' has never occurred to me. I always figured it was a metrical-alliterative synonym for motherfuckin'. Just shows that you can find a meaning you're looking for if you stretch hard enough.
And I noted before, the tomahawk chop is offensive, not for any relation to Indians but just because it makes the fans engaging in it look so bloody stupid. And I have to say, you don't get that impression within the ballpark in my experience; the TV plays it up to be larger than it is. I suspect they do so exactly because it does look so stupid.
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?
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.
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...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.
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...
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?
How about, "my position precludes me from commenting in matters such as this"?
That would be a 'presidential' response.
Essentially that's what he did. For the actual transcript (rather than the OP's bullshit spin), see post 15. For analysis breaking it all down into small bite-size morsels, see 203.
Then ask the sergeant at arms to remove the reporter from the room on account of asking a really stupid question.
So you DO recognize that the reporter brought it up. That kind of shoots "this guy believe(s) he must insert himself into every issue" right in the foot, don't you think?
Can't have it both ways.....
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?
Probably that he doesn't pay attention to the vast numbers of people's beliefs
offended that the ACA is unconstitutional, yet he defends that without question.
But that 9/10 of 1% are the only true stakeholders...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.
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...
Poseurs have been complaining about the Redskins name for decades, I am pretty sure they are the only NFL team that has consistently sold out all of its home games since 1968.
Winner, Redskins.
How about, "my position precludes me from commenting in matters such as this"?
That would be a 'presidential' response.
Essentially that's what he did. For the actual transcript (rather than the OP's bullshit spin), see post 15. For analysis breaking it all down into small bite-size morsels, see 203.
Then ask the sergeant at arms to remove the reporter from the room on account of asking a really stupid question.
So you DO recognize that the reporter brought it up. That kind of shoots "this guy believe(s) he must insert himself into every issue" right in the foot, don't you think?
Can't have it both ways.....
First, no one ever gets to ask Obama an unscripted question, even the press conferences are staged and the only people that get called are pre approved.
Second, he said more than that transcript you insist on using included, watch the video. Even if you can't find the one I posted you should be able to find it somewhere else.
"So you DO recognize that the reporter brought it up. That kind of shoots "this guy believe(s) he must insert himself into every issue" right in the foot, don't you think?"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?
How about, "my position precludes me from commenting in matters such as this"?
That would be a 'presidential' response.
Essentially that's what he did. For the actual transcript (rather than the OP's bullshit spin), see post 15. For analysis breaking it all down into small bite-size morsels, see 203.
Then ask the sergeant at arms to remove the reporter from the room on account of asking a really stupid question.
So you DO recognize that the reporter brought it up. That kind of shoots "this guy believe(s) he must insert himself into every issue" right in the foot, don't you think?
Can't have it both ways.....
there was a discussion on another forum about the term 'cotton pickin'--the poster was speaking to a group and substituted 'cotton pickin' for an expletive.
The consensus was that this is a derogative racial term.
I had to really think about this one. I grew up in the South --my grandparents were farmers, picked cotton, etc. The first image that comes to mind when I hear that term is not of slaves but of white farm families picking cotton.
The poster resolved not to use the word again. I suppose that is wise. It hasn't crossed my mind in years but I am now aware--should the situation arise.
Things that I would never consider 'stereotyping'/for insensitivity against ethnic groups are so numerous.
Honestly, whatever the deep inferences that are so objectionable to 'Redskins'--the mental picture I get is a generic Indian--much the same as when I hear 'Atlanta Braves'. So--either change all the team names or none?
I think the Braves stopped using Chief Nokahoma years ago. Fans still do the chop as far as I know. That could be offensive--the chop--Indians on warpath?
