Obama open to name change for Washington Redskins

[Pogo]

No, they changed their names in response to being threatened by the NCAA which took a political position. FSU had to get a papal dispensation from the Seminole Tribe to continue to be allowed to use that name.

The NCAA is a "political" organisation?
Whether it is or not, how does it refute the statement that "A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections"?

The NCAA took a political position, namely that those names were somehow offensive and should be changed without consulting the schools, and told the schools that if they didn't change the team names, the schools would be expelled from the NCAA and unable to play for those big money games. The schools didn't change their names due to objections or anything of the like, they did it due to extortion.

And how is that "political"? You mean as in "internal office politics" political?

It still doesn't refute the statement. Even if the objections came from NCAA, that's still "objection".

I think I already said this...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Costas started his PC diatribe and I hit the mute butto.
That peckerhead should be smacked in the head with an ashtray. Most of us watch sports to get away from politics and well, reality.....For at least a little while.

Can't escape leftist politics on NBC even when you're just trying to watch football.

So ... what did Costas say that was "political"?

He started with "With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name, “Redskins.” Let’s start here: there’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’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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, since none of the Costas reference posters will back up their own point, it's up to me to do it for them. Here's the Costas commentary from last night, for anyone else who like me might not have seen it.

Video:
Bob Costas on the Redskins Name SNF Halftime - YouTube

Full Transcript:
>> With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name “Redskins.”

Let’s start here. There is no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus toward Native Americans or wishes to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those who don’t think twice about the longstanding moniker. And in fact, as best can be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.

But, having stipulated that, there’s still a distinction to be made. Objections to names like “Braves,” “Chiefs,” “Warriors,” and the like strike many of us as political correctness run amok. These nicknames honor, rather than demean. They are pretty much the same as “Vikings,” “Patriots,” or even “Cowboys.” And names like “Blackhawks,” “Seminoles,” and “Chippewas,” while potentially more problematic, can still be okay provided the symbols are appropriately respectful – which is where the Cleveland Indians with the combination of their name and “Chief Wahoo” logo have sometimes run into trouble.

A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians; the St. John’s Redmen have become the Red Storm, and the Miami of Ohio Redskins – that’s right, Redskins – are now the Red Hawks.

Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation’s capital has maintained its name. But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.

When considered that way, &#8220;Redskins&#8221; can&#8217;t possibly honor a heritage, or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It&#8217;s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But, if you take a step back, isn&#8217;t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken? <<

No mention of politics. An examination of how offense can be legitimate, but that's a social value. No mention of anything "political". Like the Jovan Belcher commentary a year ago, this is about cultural values, not political ones. A lot of posters then tried to make that into a "political" rant too. Same thing.

I can see why nobody who made that point wanted to post the content.

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.

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections.

No, they changed their names in response to being threatened by the NCAA which took a political position. FSU had to get a papal dispensation from the Seminole Tribe to continue to be allowed to use that name.

The NCAA is a "political" organisation?
Whether it is or not, how does it refute the statement that "A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections"?

Yes, it is.

NCAA spent $1.6 million on lobbying in past decade | Center for Public Integrity

 

[driveby]

Looks like the Cowgirls scalped the Redskins real good last night.........

 

[Desperado]

Costas is such a Obama bot, If Costas wanted to campaign for a Redskins Name Change he should have done it on "Meet The Press" and not bring politics to "Sunday Night Football". That being said the Redskins should Change their name to the "DC Liberal Palefaces".

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Costas is such a Obama bot, If Costas wanted to campaign for a Redskins Name Change he should have done it on "Meet The Press" and not bring politics to "Sunday Night Football". That being said the Redskins should Change their name to the "DC Liberal Palefaces".

And remember last year when he went on his anti-gun rant.
He's now nothing more than a northeastern media lib who should shut the **** up, or move from sports to MSLSD.

 

[Pogo]

Can't escape leftist politics on NBC even when you're just trying to watch football.

So ... what did Costas say that was "political"?

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.

 

[Pogo]

Well, since none of the Costas reference posters will back up their own point, it's up to me to do it for them. Here's the Costas commentary from last night, for anyone else who like me might not have seen it.

Video:
Bob Costas on the Redskins Name SNF Halftime - YouTube

Full Transcript:
>> 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 is no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus toward Native Americans or wishes 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 can be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.

But, having stipulated that, there&#8217;s still a distinction to be made. Objections to names like &#8220;Braves,&#8221; &#8220;Chiefs,&#8221; &#8220;Warriors,&#8221; and the like strike many of us as political correctness run amok. These nicknames honor, rather than demean. They are pretty much the same as &#8220;Vikings,&#8221; &#8220;Patriots,&#8221; or even &#8220;Cowboys.&#8221; And names like &#8220;Blackhawks,&#8221; &#8220;Seminoles,&#8221; and &#8220;Chippewas,&#8221; while potentially more problematic, can still be okay provided the symbols are appropriately respectful &#8211; which is where the Cleveland Indians with the combination of their name and &#8220;Chief Wahoo&#8221; logo have sometimes run into trouble.

A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians; the St. John&#8217;s Redmen have become the Red Storm, and the Miami of Ohio Redskins &#8211; that&#8217;s right, Redskins &#8211; are now the Red Hawks.

Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation&#8217;s capital has maintained its name. But think for a moment about the term &#8220;Redskins,&#8221; and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.

When considered that way, &#8220;Redskins&#8221; can&#8217;t possibly honor a heritage, or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It&#8217;s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But, if you take a step back, isn&#8217;t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken? <<

No mention of politics. An examination of how offense can be legitimate, but that's a social value. No mention of anything "political". Like the Jovan Belcher commentary a year ago, this is about cultural values, not political ones. A lot of posters then tried to make that into a "political" rant too. Same thing.

I can see why nobody who made that point wanted to post the content.

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?

 

[Pogo]

No, they changed their names in response to being threatened by the NCAA which took a political position. FSU had to get a papal dispensation from the Seminole Tribe to continue to be allowed to use that name.

The NCAA is a "political" organisation?
Whether it is or not, how does it refute the statement that "A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections"?

Yes, it is.

NCAA spent $1.6 million on lobbying in past decade | Center for Public Integrity

Fair point - lobbyists means political, ergo the NCAA can be deemed a political org. OTOH I haven't seen evidence that they're using those lobbyists to get any team to change its name. Once that happens, the poster's point that "politics" changed those team names will have merit. Until then... not so much.

In any case it still doesn't refute what it was trotted out to refute.

 

[Pogo]

Costas is such a Obama bot, If Costas wanted to campaign for a Redskins Name Change he should have done it on "Meet The Press" and not bring politics to "Sunday Night Football". That being said the Redskins should Change their name to the "DC Liberal Palefaces".

And remember last year when he went on his anti-gun rant.
He's now nothing more than a northeastern media lib who should shut the **** up, or move from sports to MSLSD.

The Jovan Belcher commentary I referred to earlier?

I will ask yet again -- was that one "political"? If so, why?

 

[R.C. Christian]

As a father to a redskin daughter and a husband to redskin wife, I can honestly say that nobody gives a shit except Cost Ass.

 

[Papageorgio]

Has anyone ever bothered to ask what the injuns think about this?

They don't think it's an issue. It is only thin skinned people that this offends.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Hey Bob !!

REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So ... what did Costas say that was "political"?

He started with "With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name, “Redskins.” Let’s start here: there’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’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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, since none of the Costas reference posters will back up their own point, it's up to me to do it for them. Here's the Costas commentary from last night, for anyone else who like me might not have seen it.

Video:
Bob Costas on the Redskins Name SNF Halftime - YouTube

Full Transcript:
>> With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name “Redskins.”

Let’s start here. There is no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus toward Native Americans or wishes to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those who don’t think twice about the longstanding moniker. And in fact, as best can be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.

But, having stipulated that, there’s still a distinction to be made. Objections to names like “Braves,” “Chiefs,” “Warriors,” and the like strike many of us as political correctness run amok. These nicknames honor, rather than demean. They are pretty much the same as “Vikings,” “Patriots,” or even “Cowboys.” And names like “Blackhawks,” “Seminoles,” and “Chippewas,” while potentially more problematic, can still be okay provided the symbols are appropriately respectful – which is where the Cleveland Indians with the combination of their name and “Chief Wahoo” logo have sometimes run into trouble.

A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians; the St. John’s Redmen have become the Red Storm, and the Miami of Ohio Redskins – that’s right, Redskins – are now the Red Hawks.

Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation’s capital has maintained its name. But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.

When considered that way, “Redskins” can’t possibly honor a heritage, or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But, if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken? <<

No mention of politics. An examination of how offense can be legitimate, but that's a social value. No mention of anything "political". Like the Jovan Belcher commentary a year ago, this is about cultural values, not political ones. A lot of posters then tried to make that into a "political" rant too. Same thing.

I can see why nobody who made that point wanted to post the content.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The NCAA is a "political" organisation?
Whether it is or not, how does it refute the statement that "A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections"?

Yes, it is.

NCAA spent $1.6 million on lobbying in past decade | Center for Public Integrity

Fair point - lobbyists means political, ergo the NCAA can be deemed a political org. OTOH I haven't seen evidence that they're using those lobbyists to get any team to change its name. Once that happens, the poster's point that "politics" changed those team names will have merit. Until then... not so much.

In any case it still doesn't refute what it was trotted out to refute.

I don't think he said what you think he said.

 

[BDBoop]

Makes sense.

I mean, George would probably do the same.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Makes sense.

I mean, George would probably do the same.

Damn, never thought I would see the day I tried to rep you three times in 24 hours.

 

[BDBoop]

Makes sense.

I mean, George would probably do the same.

Damn, never thought I would see the day I tried to rep you three times in 24 hours.

It's been crazy, for sure!