Obama open to name change for Washington Redskins

[American_Jihad]

Here's another yawl can get wee weed up about...

 

[TheOldSchool]

Fuck bob costas. That is all.

 

[Pogo]

Here's another yawl can get wee weed up about...

Late to the party again, Jizzhat. We did this guy waaaay back:

>> Specifically, King et al. point to the prominence of FSU's (Florida State University) Chief Osceola mascot in sports culture while few sports fans know anything of his historic namesake, who was actually captured by the U.S. military under the pretense of a supposed truce negotiation during the real "Indian Wars". The real Osceola died 3 months after his capture and was decapitated postmortem. His possessions were taken as relics by U.S. soldiers, as was his head (after it was embalmed). None of this history is discernible from the pageantry and stereotypical imagery used in sports, which serves to trivialize the names and figures sports culture has appropriated. << - Post 66.

Why don't you leave this to the grownups. There must be some Hollywood celeb who's phone calls you could be listening in on.

 

[BDBoop]

When I was in high school, our team was the Redmen. School colors, red and black.

Now we're the Magic. WTF, forlame.

 

[Pogo]

He started with "With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name, &#8220;Redskins.&#8221; Let&#8217;s start here: there&#8217;s no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus towards Native Americans, or chooses to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those who don&#8217;t think twice about the longstanding moniker. And in fact, as best could be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended." and went on for 2 minutes, why do you care?

I know what he said -- since that post I found and posted the whole transcript since no one else would.
The poster maintained that Costas' commentary was a "political" rant. I asked how it is. Still waiting for an answer. Not that I expect one.

It is a political rant, despite your insistence that it isn't. Want proof? Politics is defined as the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level.

Costas was trying to influence people on an individual level that they should care about the name of a sports team, which makes what he said political.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

Not in any real sense of "politics". By this broad-stretch definition, if any attempt to influence another person is "political", then a toothpaste advertisement or a marital argument or an offensive line trash talk must all be defined as "political".

Interesting use of Wikipedia as dictionary btw. Whatever it takes, huh?

Regardless of that, where is Bob Costas advocating a course of action?

 

[Pogo]

I see how you think now, it is only politics if the guy who is speaking says it is. That explains why you always defend the government, they never talk about politics, despite the fact that everything the government does is about politics.

There's nothing in this issue about the government. With or without Bob Costas. Nothing about any kind of legislation, real or imagined. That's why I say politics is not involved.
Am I typing this too fast?

By the way, can you explain what gun control has to do with the name of a football team?

Nope, sure can't. Who said it did?

You did, which is why I asked.

No, I did not. I made no reference to "gun control" whatsoever. It's not related here.

I did make a comparison between two commentaries by the same guy on the same venue and questioned whether either can be seen as "political" rather than "social" commentary. I got no answer on that either. But neither of those commentaries was about "gun control", so there's no basis for that question.

 

[American_Jihad]

Costas Follows Obama's Lead on 'Redskins'

"With Washington playing Dallas tonight, it seemed like the appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name 'Redskins.'"

10.14.2013 |Bradford Thomas |

...

Last night on NBC’s Sunday Night Football, host Bob Costas felt the need to weigh in on the Washington Redskins controversy.

The issue of the politically incorrect franchise was recently stirred up again, in part due to President Obama’s remarks in an AP interview that he would “think about changing” the name if it was “offending a sizable group of people” and team owner Dan Snyder’s subsequent defense of the team’s name.

Costas, whose recent political commentary on gun control made headlines, decided to join the "Redskins" dispute as well:

“With Washington playing Dallas tonight, it seemed like the appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name “Redskins”...

Costas began by dismissing any allegations that the ownership of the team “harbored any animus” toward Native Americans. He also pointed out that a “majority of Native Americans” are not offended by the name. Costas also criticized “political correctness run amok” over disputes about some harmless team names.

...

Costas Follows Obama's Lead on 'Redskins' | Truth Revolt

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know what he said -- since that post I found and posted the whole transcript since no one else would.
The poster maintained that Costas' commentary was a "political" rant. I asked how it is. Still waiting for an answer. Not that I expect one.

It is a political rant, despite your insistence that it isn't. Want proof? Politics is defined as the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level.

Costas was trying to influence people on an individual level that they should care about the name of a sports team, which makes what he said political.

Not in any real sense of "politics". By this broad-stretch definition, if any attempt to influence another person is "political", then a toothpaste advertisement or a marital argument or an offensive line trash talk must all be defined as "political".

Interesting use of Wikipedia as dictionary btw. Whatever it takes, huh?

Regardless of that, where is Bob Costas advocating a course of action?

The only stretching going on here is coming from you.

Ever here of office politics? How does that fit in with your insistence that politics is always about government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's nothing in this issue about the government. With or without Bob Costas. Nothing about any kind of legislation, real or imagined. That's why I say politics is not involved.
Am I typing this too fast?



Nope, sure can't. Who said it did?

You did, which is why I asked.

No, I did not. I made no reference to "gun control" whatsoever. It's not related here.

I did make a comparison between two commentaries by the same guy on the same venue and questioned whether either can be seen as "political" rather than "social" commentary. I got no answer on that either. But neither of those commentaries was about "gun control", so there's no basis for that question.

You didn't mention Jovan Belsher?

Why is your account always getting hacked?

 

[American_Jihad]

Redskins Unveil New Name and Logo Honoring Obama

October 14, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

Despite numerous refusals, the Washington Redskins, under pressure from the White House and Congressional Democrats, have finally given in to the demands that they change their name and logo to something less offensive.

Hopefully this new redesign will make the team more popular and eliminate any and all complaints about insensitivity once and for all.

Redskins Unveil New Name and Logo Honoring Obama | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Tank]

 

[Pogo]

You did, which is why I asked.

No, I did not. I made no reference to "gun control" whatsoever. It's not related here.

I did make a comparison between two commentaries by the same guy on the same venue and questioned whether either can be seen as "political" rather than "social" commentary. I got no answer on that either. But neither of those commentaries was about "gun control", so there's no basis for that question.

You didn't mention Jovan Belsher?

Why is your account always getting hacked?

Nothing around here getting "hacked". I did make reference to the Costas piece on Jovan Belcher; I did not make reference to "gun control". Nor did Costas. Jovan Belcher was a football player; "gun control" is a political issue. Not related. But I notice I still get no answer.

Perhaps it's your reading comprehension getting "hacked".

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Redskins Unveil New Name and Logo Honoring Obama

October 14, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

Despite numerous refusals, the Washington Redskins, under pressure from the White House and Congressional Democrats, have finally given in to the demands that they change their name and logo to something less offensive.

Hopefully this new redesign will make the team more popular and eliminate any and all complaints about insensitivity once and for all.

Redskins Unveil New Name and Logo Honoring Obama | FrontPage Magazine

Crack pipe instead of a peace pipe.

 

[longknife]

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.

This is yet another example of a massive pile of male bovine excrement over nothing!

The term came into being when early settlers to North America encountered natives wearing lots of red body paint from red ocher. The body paint was not just decorative - it protected the wearer from many insect bites.

So, in actuality, the term Redskin is a positive appellation for those smart enough to come up with natural protection against irritants and disease.

I hope the owner sticks to his guns and tells all those rectal orifices to take a dive into an empty swimming pool.

 

[Kondor3]

Ya know... when you've gone out of your way to explain that your choice of names was a signal honor to a group... and when most of the group does not object... one tends to just throw up one's hands and say 'phukk it, it stays, sue me'... and stop listening. When one stops listening, the taunting of the original 'objectors' begins, and nothing more gets done. Probably just as well. Tempest in a teapot, and all that. Much ado about nothing. Turns down the volume and walks away.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I did not. I made no reference to "gun control" whatsoever. It's not related here.

I did make a comparison between two commentaries by the same guy on the same venue and questioned whether either can be seen as "political" rather than "social" commentary. I got no answer on that either. But neither of those commentaries was about "gun control", so there's no basis for that question.

You didn't mention Jovan Belsher?

Why is your account always getting hacked?

Nothing around here getting "hacked". I did make reference to the Costas piece on Jovan Belcher; I did not make reference to "gun control". Nor did Costas. Jovan Belcher was a football player; "gun control" is a political issue. Not related. But I notice I still get no answer.

Perhaps it's your reading comprehension getting "hacked".

Costas and Belcher were all about gun control, yet you want to pretend you didn't say anything about gun control because you want to defend idiots. Is that a side effect of your defense of the government?

 

[Pogo]

You didn't mention Jovan Belsher?

Why is your account always getting hacked?

Nothing around here getting "hacked". I did make reference to the Costas piece on Jovan Belcher; I did not make reference to "gun control". Nor did Costas. Jovan Belcher was a football player; "gun control" is a political issue. Not related. But I notice I still get no answer.

Perhaps it's your reading comprehension getting "hacked".

Costas and Belcher were all about gun control, yet you want to pretend you didn't say anything about gun control because you want to defend idiots. Is that a side effect of your defense of the government?

No, Costas never mentioned gun control or gun laws or any laws. Is that a side effect of your abject illiteracy?

Or do you just see what you want to see and disregard the words?
That must be a convenience.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing around here getting "hacked". I did make reference to the Costas piece on Jovan Belcher; I did not make reference to "gun control". Nor did Costas. Jovan Belcher was a football player; "gun control" is a political issue. Not related. But I notice I still get no answer.

Perhaps it's your reading comprehension getting "hacked".

Costas and Belcher were all about gun control, yet you want to pretend you didn't say anything about gun control because you want to defend idiots. Is that a side effect of your defense of the government?

No, Costas never mentioned gun control or gun laws or any laws. Is that a side effect of your abject illiteracy?

Or do you just see what you want to see and disregard the words?
That must be a convenience.

How am I illiterate? I clearly said it was all about gun control, not that he mentioned them. He proved it was about gun control when he spouted the nonsense that lack of a gun would mean that no one would have died, something he later said he regretted saying because he thinks it is more complex than that. You can blather all you want, but that was a political statement, just like the one about the Redskins.

 

[Moonglow]

Native Americans are not red skinned humans.

 

[Pogo]

Costas and Belcher were all about gun control, yet you want to pretend you didn't say anything about gun control because you want to defend idiots. Is that a side effect of your defense of the government?

No, Costas never mentioned gun control or gun laws or any laws. Is that a side effect of your abject illiteracy?

Or do you just see what you want to see and disregard the words?
That must be a convenience.

How am I illiterate? I clearly said it was all about gun control, not that he mentioned them. He proved it was about gun control when he spouted the nonsense that lack of a gun would mean that no one would have died, something he later said he regretted saying because he thinks it is more complex than that. You can blather all you want, but that was a political statement, just like the one about the Redskins.

Illiterate because had you read the words you could not have jumped to the conclusion you just did. The Costas piece of December '12 was social commentary. It contained no mention of gun control or laws of any kind. For that matter he made no mention of any particular avenue of addressing the issue of rampant gun violence at all, legal or otherwise; just that such exists and is detrimental to humanity. A statement about trends and values. Nothing in there suggests the solution should be gun control -- or anything else other than examining our values.

And the "no gun = no die" line was clearly stated as a quote from writer Jason Whitlock. Even then, again no mention of any laws, real or imagined. A law is hardly the only avenue of nonexistence.

Now if the only way you can read that is "a gun control rant", well that's your own failure of imagination. And reading comprehension.

We done here?