Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:33 am
Maybe but I saw most of Mexico Croatia.Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:In other news...
...you guys missed out on some great soccer today.
Page 2 of 2
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:36 am
Sounds like the screen name of a midget porn star...Moving Sale wrote:I saw most of Mexico Croatia.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:38 am
And a hot one at that.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:05 am
poptart wrote:If Redskins bothers you, don't watch it, don't support it.
Go piss up a rope.Moving Bowel wrote:That is not how trademark law works.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:17 pm
So you don't care about US law. Nice post commie.poptart wrote:poptart wrote:If Redskins bothers you, don't watch it, don't support it.Go piss up a rope.Moving Bowel wrote:That is not how trademark law works.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:45 pm
Actually...not a horrible idea.Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Moving Sale wrote:Just so we are clear why he changed the name in the first place.
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/05 ... americans/
From the Comments section in your link:
The solution is really simple. Florida State University is famous for being the Seminoles. They license the name from the tribe, support scholarships, and both sides benefit.
The Washington team needs to partner with the Patawomeck tribe of Virginia. Also known as the Potomacs. The Washington Potomacs. Change the logo slightly so the warrior is wearing wild turkey feathers and you're done. Makes even more sense when you remember that the Potomac River (named for the tribe) runs on one side of D.C.
Problem solved. For my next trick, I'll get Boston basketball fans to pronounce "Celtic" correctly.
Sounds about right.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:11 pm
If I wanted the opinion of a stupid racist tard I would have asked. How's the weather ofailurecal.mvscal wrote: Actually...not a horrible idea.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:10 pm
It's a great idea. Too bad the dickheaded owner will never go for it.mvscal wrote:
Actually...not a horrible idea.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:57 pm
Well, it is his team. He can call it whatever the fuck he wants to call it. If that offends you, you can go fuck yourself.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:09 pm
Eh. Danny Boy values a free, taxpayer funded domed stadium in the District more than the team name. But he can't have both.mvscal wrote:Well, it is his team. He can call it whatever the fuck he wants to call it. If that offends you, you can go fuck yourself.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:37 pm
It's been a stressful day at work so far and I needed that.mvscal wrote:Well, it is his team. He can call it whatever the fuck he wants to call it. If that offends you, you can go fuck yourself.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:10 pm
He already has both.Screw_Michigan wrote:Eh. Danny Boy values a free, taxpayer funded domed stadium in the District more than the team name. But he can't have both.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:28 pm
No he doesn't, you're actually wrong on three accounts. You're only right about him having the team name.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:28 pm
How is forklifting for a living so stressful?War Wagon wrote:
It's been a stressful day at work so far and I needed that.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:57 pm
Says the resident jizzmopper.Screw_Michigan wrote:How is forklifting for a living so stressful?War Wagon wrote:
It's been a stressful day at work so far and I needed that.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:00 pm
Nice IKYABWAI. War Onoqqer.Derron wrote: Says the resident jizzmopper.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:43 pm
Honestly, if the money grubbing kike doesn't care about keeping a name that could offend or alienate people, more power to him.mvscal wrote:Well, it is his team. He can call it whatever the fuck he wants to call it. If that offends you, you can go fuck yourself.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:47 pm
What are the odds that anyone who pretends to be offended by the name actually watches football?R-Jack wrote:Honestly, if the money grubbing kike doesn't care about keeping a name that could offend or alienate people, more power to him.mvscal wrote:Well, it is his team. He can call it whatever the fuck he wants to call it. If that offends you, you can go fuck yourself.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:13 pm
People have to watch football in order to be offended by a racist term? Nice logic, Corky.mvscal wrote:What are the odds that anyone who pretends to be offended by the name actually watches football?R-Jack wrote:Honestly, if the money grubbing kike doesn't care about keeping a name that could offend or alienate people, more power to him.mvscal wrote:Well, it is his team. He can call it whatever the fuck he wants to call it. If that offends you, you can go fuck yourself.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:30 pm
The point is why would he give a shit if a couple people who don't even watch football get their panties in a bunch.Goober McTuber wrote: People have to watch football in order to be offended by a racist term? Nice logic, Corky.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:40 pm
I think it's more than a couple of people. I watch football, I get the NFL Package every year, and I think it's time for a name change in Washington. Something that reflects properly on the people who populate that city (ie, our elected government). Maybe the Washington Shitstains.mvscal wrote:The point is why would he give a shit if a couple people who don't even watch football get their panties in a bunch.Goober McTuber wrote: People have to watch football in order to be offended by a racist term? Nice logic, Corky.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:48 pm
To be associated with Washington would be offensive to honest, hardworking stains of shit.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:42 am
Anyone with a grade school education can look around and see that U.S law has become arbitrary.Moving Bowel wrote:So you don't care about US law. Nice post commie.
"The law" has been defecated on and is no longer legible.
Making up bullshit as we go along -----> isn't law.
Nice "profession" you've chosen, loser.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:07 pm
Does that actually make sense in your cholesterol-riddled brain lump? Do I really seem to be "acting tough" to you?Papa Willie wrote:So this is your way of saying "I try to act tough, but I'm really just a soft vaginal paper weight"?Goober McTuber wrote:I think it's more than a couple of people. I watch football, I get the NFL Package every year, and I think it's time for a name change in Washington. Something that reflects properly on the people who populate that city (ie, our elected government). Maybe the Washington Shitstains.mvscal wrote:
The point is why would he give a shit if a couple people who don't even watch football get their panties in a bunch.
You are really one painfully stupid motherfucker.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:49 pm
Is that one of your soon to be roomies up at UT?
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:03 pm
The only thing tough about McGoober is her oft-plungered dimehole.
Have a great weekend friends!!!
Have a great weekend friends!!!
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:29 pm
We'll look at that a thread about something offensive and a racist and a pedophile show up.R-Jack wrote:Honestly, if the money grubbing kike doesn't care about keeping a name that could offend or alienate people, more power to him.mvscal wrote:Well, it is his team. He can call it whatever the fuck he wants to call it. If that offends you, you can go fuck yourself.
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 4:02 pm
Screwy, your thoughts?
The Eagles play the Washington Redskins on Saturday.
That sentence wouldn't appear on the editorial page of The Washington Post, or under the bylines of various sports columnists around the country, or in the student newspaper at Neshaminy High School in Bucks County. Those publications and people have decided that the word "Redskins" is so offensive, as a slur against Native Americans, that they will not use it. (This assertion, of course, is also at the heart of a campaign to change the franchise's name.)
To these writers and media outlets, the NFL team in the nation's capital is always "Washington," never "the Redskins," and they are of course free to take such a principled stand.
It's just that they really shouldn't.
Here's why: This idea might come off as old-fashioned, especially in our diverse and ever-expanding media world, but if you're a reporter or a columnist or a newspaper or a magazine or a news website or maybe even an independent blogger or pretty much anyone who practices what can be called journalism, your primary responsibility ought to be the same: Report the facts as accurately and completely as possible, present them as accurately and completely as possible, and don't let any agenda - political, social, personal - get in the way of those goals.
You start with that foundation, and you build your news story, your analysis, your commentary (however mealy-mouthed or strident) from there. That's the promise you make to your readers.
The problem with banning "Redskins" as a reference to Washington's football team, then, is that you're breaking that promise right off the bat.
You're revealing immediately that, in what's supposed to be your role as a reliable narrator, you are actually unreliable. You're telling your readers: We have a principle or an agenda that goes beyond informing you. In fact, we'll withhold information from you if we believe it runs counter to that agenda. It doesn't matter that this agenda may be based on good intentions - in this case, on the desire to be respectful to Native Americans.
Once a news organization places such advocacy ahead of thorough, precise, honest reporting, it fails to stick to the fundamentals of journalism, and it puts its credibility at risk.
No one would condone a publication or website using an ethnic term in a pejorative manner, and of course different media outlets have varying standards for what they consider to be appropriate language. But there is at least a general consensus in our society and culture about which words rise to the level of vulgarity, and that consensus hasn't been reached yet with respect to "Redskins" - at least, not as this particular sports franchise still uses the word.
Remember: No one's suggesting that, for all his faults, owner Daniel Snyder wants to retain the franchise's name for the express purpose of demeaning or mocking Native Americans. (Does Snyder want to continue making millions of dollars by keeping the name and its recognizable tradition? Sure. Does he want to avoid upsetting the team's fans and sacrificing ticket sales? Absolutely. That makes him rather greedy, which means he's pretty much just like any other NFL owner.)
The objections to the name are grounded in the notion that the word itself is offensive, no matter how or why it's used or why the franchise won't change it, and therefore it should not appear in print or online. But if we're to apply that logic to similar terms or words, there should have been media who referred to this former NFL quarterback as Chris Guy Who Went To Louisville. See if you can find anyone who did.
I'm not arguing that the franchise should change its name or that it shouldn't, and I'm not arguing that it's wrong for a media member to support a name change and say so publicly. But I am arguing that even if Snyder were refusing to change the name solely because he was an overt bigot and racist, the journalistic responsibility to provide information to news consumers supersedes the desire to avoid offending anyone.
"Redskins" is the official name of a franchise in the National Football League. It is a fact. You report facts. You call them the Washington Redskins because it's their name, and because that's supposed to be your job.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/spor ... iv3bibU.99
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:39 pm
I just wanted to drop this here, I know I'm late to the party. I sought out the thread because I just caught the Larry Wilmore segment on the "Nightly Show" where the Deadskins came up.
I don't speak up on how racist slavery is or the Civil Rights movement. Black people get really pissed when you discuss their culture and are not one of them, keep mine out of your mouths if that is the case. Period. They love to tell people that we don't know what it's like to be black . . . well they don't know what it is like to be an American Indian. Keep our social issues out of your mouth unless you want me to be speaking up on my opinions of yours publicly as well.
First of all, I'm a Cowboys fan. I don't post in the NFL forum so most don't know that. Much of my family are Chiefs fans (we're from southern Kansas but I grew up more in Texas and became a Cowboys fan).
I'm also a CDIB card carrying member of the Choctaw Nation. My mother is more American Indian than white, easily. Choctaw and Chickasaw predominantly but also Cherokee and Creek. On my father's side I could also qualify for Cherokee and Pawnee tribal membership if I wasn't already Choctaw. Two of my five closest friends are also Indians. One who is 100% Seminole and the other is about half mixed with Choctaw and Cherokee.
The stuff about the Redskins is completely moronic. You know who are the people upset about this? Liberals on the coast who for the most part have probably never met an American Indian with more than 50% blood or who comes from a reservation. I love it when some blonde haired and blue eyed , white guilt, jack ass , from Philly/NYC/Pittsburgh/Cleveland/LA/San Fransisco/Etc. tell me I'm a racist because I have no issue and am even supportive of the Redskins name. Close to a quarter of my family grew up and come from either the reservation adjacent to Shawnee and Tecumseh (Sac-Fox Tribal Land) or the one outside of Ada. These same people don't have a damn word to say about Iona's Mascot, they also don't have a damn thing to say about the state name of Oklahoma. Oklahoma is from my grandmother's native language, it means "Land of the Redman."
You know who else gets upset about it? The Sioux and a bunch of small tribes in Arizona. The biggest trouble makers on the face of the Earth for my fellow American Indians the last half century. Everything with these asshole tribes is a fucking fight with the government and the "evil white man." It has gotten really fucking old the last two decades especially. Multiple times our tribes have reached agreements with the government which would help improve our peoples situation; everything from medical coverage to better schools. They repeatedly fuck this and other legislation in DC up, royally.
It's a damn mascot, and it's represented in a honorable fashion. It's based on a name/word that numerous tribes such as the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole, Sac-Fox, and many others use to describe themselves . . . and have for CENTURIES!
I don't speak up on how racist slavery is or the Civil Rights movement. Black people get really pissed when you discuss their culture and are not one of them, keep mine out of your mouths if that is the case. Period. They love to tell people that we don't know what it's like to be black . . . well they don't know what it is like to be an American Indian. Keep our social issues out of your mouth unless you want me to be speaking up on my opinions of yours publicly as well.
First of all, I'm a Cowboys fan. I don't post in the NFL forum so most don't know that. Much of my family are Chiefs fans (we're from southern Kansas but I grew up more in Texas and became a Cowboys fan).
I'm also a CDIB card carrying member of the Choctaw Nation. My mother is more American Indian than white, easily. Choctaw and Chickasaw predominantly but also Cherokee and Creek. On my father's side I could also qualify for Cherokee and Pawnee tribal membership if I wasn't already Choctaw. Two of my five closest friends are also Indians. One who is 100% Seminole and the other is about half mixed with Choctaw and Cherokee.
The stuff about the Redskins is completely moronic. You know who are the people upset about this? Liberals on the coast who for the most part have probably never met an American Indian with more than 50% blood or who comes from a reservation. I love it when some blonde haired and blue eyed , white guilt, jack ass , from Philly/NYC/Pittsburgh/Cleveland/LA/San Fransisco/Etc. tell me I'm a racist because I have no issue and am even supportive of the Redskins name. Close to a quarter of my family grew up and come from either the reservation adjacent to Shawnee and Tecumseh (Sac-Fox Tribal Land) or the one outside of Ada. These same people don't have a damn word to say about Iona's Mascot, they also don't have a damn thing to say about the state name of Oklahoma. Oklahoma is from my grandmother's native language, it means "Land of the Redman."
You know who else gets upset about it? The Sioux and a bunch of small tribes in Arizona. The biggest trouble makers on the face of the Earth for my fellow American Indians the last half century. Everything with these asshole tribes is a fucking fight with the government and the "evil white man." It has gotten really fucking old the last two decades especially. Multiple times our tribes have reached agreements with the government which would help improve our peoples situation; everything from medical coverage to better schools. They repeatedly fuck this and other legislation in DC up, royally.
It's a damn mascot, and it's represented in a honorable fashion. It's based on a name/word that numerous tribes such as the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole, Sac-Fox, and many others use to describe themselves . . . and have for CENTURIES!
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:50 pm
Yeah, except for the whole way Dan Snyder runs the team.SunCoastSooner wrote: It's a damn mascot, and it's represented in a honorable fashion
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:55 pm
TouchéScrew_Michigan wrote:Yeah, except for the whole way Dan Snyder runs the team.SunCoastSooner wrote: It's a damn mascot, and it's represented in a honorable fashion
Re: Washington Redskins
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:07 pm
When are the yankees going to have to drop their name?
The term yankee's origin is a bit fussy, but, it was derogatory. Being from the heart of the region that "yankees" come from, I suppose I should be offended. I think they should either change their name.....or give the red sox their first 2 pics in the draft.
The term yankee's origin is a bit fussy, but, it was derogatory. Being from the heart of the region that "yankees" come from, I suppose I should be offended. I think they should either change their name.....or give the red sox their first 2 pics in the draft.