Obama open to name change for Washington Redskins

[theDoctorisIn]

"...Why did Roo start this thread, if he didn't give a shit about Obama's opinion on this?..."

Oh, it's an opportunity to throw rocks at Obumble, no doubt about it.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing; certainly not in this particular circumstance.

Presidents of the United States are supposed to be above such maudlin interference.

Personally, I think Fearless Leader shot off his mouth in a topical area where his opinion should have no more weight than any other citizen, and I do not think that he should have used the Presidential Bully Pulpit for something as otherwise frivolous as this.

He was asked the question at the end of the interview, and gave a completely non-committal, middle of the road answer. What exactly is inappropriate about that?

 

[Pogo]

Why did Roo start this thread, if he didn't give a shit about Obama's opinion on this?

Why did The T, skye, R. C. Chrisitian, and novasteve post about their outrage, if they didn't give a shit?

That's only from the first few posts, I could go on.

And you'd go on being incorrect.......

You can deny that this thread exists, if you like.

Something tells me he's qualified for the job...

But to deny the thread exists while posting in it, that takes a special skill.

 

[Pogo]

"...Why did Roo start this thread, if he didn't give a shit about Obama's opinion on this?..."

Oh, it's an opportunity to throw rocks at Obumble, no doubt about it.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing; certainly not in this particular circumstance.

Presidents of the United States are supposed to be above such maudlin interference.

Personally, I think Fearless Leader shot off his mouth in a topical area where his opinion should have no more weight than any other citizen, and I do not think that he should have used the Presidential Bully Pulpit for something as otherwise frivolous as this.

He was asked the question at the end of the interview, and gave a completely non-committal, middle of the road answer. What exactly is inappropriate about that?

Doc beat me to it but I was gonna say, how is responding to a question "using the bully pulpit"?

 

[driveby]

-- and that's why there are 130 posts about the totem of a football team, and zero about the shutdown, the ACA, the budget, political moves, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, Syria and Egypt.

Clear as mud. And twice as honest.

Murky as muddy water and twice as deceiving. The OP doesn't give a shit what Obama's opinion is regarding this matter and thinks he should focus on leadership, not sports/pop culture. The other posts seem to follow that narrative, except for the moonbats of course.........

If the OP doesn't give a shit, then why did he post a thread on an insignificant cherrypick of an irrelevant part of the interview while ignoring the shutdown, the ACA, the budget, political moves, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, Syria and Egypt? That is where the focus of the interview was...

Because he's selling myths, that's why. And you're buying. You already bought the idea that Obama's taking the active role and stirring the shit, rather than a simple passive answer to an unsolicited and insignificant question that it is.

Maybe he thought that time would been better spent asking Obama about his hypocrisy regarding the debt ceiling rather than asking Obama about the Redskins? .....

Kind of like Obama answering more questions about Travon Martin or Skip Gates than he did about Benghazi?......

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Murky as muddy water and twice as deceiving. The OP doesn't give a shit what Obama's opinion is regarding this matter and thinks he should focus on leadership, not sports/pop culture. The other posts seem to follow that narrative, except for the moonbats of course.........

If the OP doesn't give a shit, then why did he post a thread on an insignificant cherrypick of an irrelevant part of the interview while ignoring the shutdown, the ACA, the budget, political moves, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, Syria and Egypt? That is where the focus of the interview was...

Because he's selling myths, that's why. And you're buying. You already bought the idea that Obama's taking the active role and stirring the shit, rather than a simple passive answer to an unsolicited and insignificant question that it is.

Maybe he thought that time would been better spent asking Obama about his hypocrisy regarding the debt ceiling rather than asking Obama about the Redskins? .....

Kind of like Obama answering more questions about Travon Martin or Skip Gates than he did about Benghazi?......

The debt ceiling was discussed extensively in the interview (the transcript is posted), yet the only part of it that Roo seemed to think merited a thread was this.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I wonder what percentage of our esteemed RW posters would have gone all in supporting Marshall.

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

I know what you're trying here, you're assuming it's progress to rename the team just as it was progress when integration came.
The latter was progress, renaming is nothing more than a feel good measure to make those in favor feel like they've accomplished something when in this case they've only fell further into the PC cesspool.

What is ridiculous about not using a racially derogatory term? It is amazing to me that people have a problem with changing the name but claim others are sensitive. If its not a big deal to you then why not change it to accommodate someone that it may offend due to past historically references? Is it because you are the really sensitive one and wish to keep using the term to further make others feel bad?

I'll leave it up those individuals who have "redskin" and who say they are not offended by the use of the term.

 

[Pogo]

"...There was a time when '******' (or Chinaman, or Dago or ****, etc) were not societal taboos, within the dominant (less inclusive) society, in their own time. 'Redskin' is in this category too..."

Disagree, insofar as 'Redskin' has not yet attained this status.

There is an element of the population that is trying to force the issue and to place it within the domain of 'societal taboo' but we are not there yet.

This (the present controversy) shall determine that (whether the name remains untarnished).

The name was meant as a Remembrance and Badge of Honor - a living memorial to Bravery and Fighting Spirit - rather than anything negative.

Neither I nor anyone else who is 'just fine' with that name, can do anything to prevent others from intentionally misinterpreting that original (and still operative) intention, nor to stop them from advocating to take action which, ultimately, takes another step down the road of Cultural Forgetfulness and Oblivion.

They (and you, apparently) read Malevolent Intent and Derision into the Name and Logo.

Others read a Rendering of Honors and Acknowledgement of Bravery into the Name and Logo.

Impasse.

Not necessarily.

I submit that redskin, like ****** (though not to the same degree) was always the word of the oppressor for the oppressed, IOW always the POV of the self-styled "superior" entity. It has no 'noble' or otherwise positive connotation. And you don't find Indians referring to themselves as redskins.

--- And why would they anyway; it's a relative term, meaningful only to a race that has a different coloured skin. Which means it designates an "other" -- regardless whether that "other" is adjudged inferior or not, an other. Some racial anomaly set apart.

Now we've (I think) established that we wouldn't call a team the New York Negroes. Would we call a team the Buffalo Black Skins? Or the Atlanta African Americans?

Discuss.

 

[driveby]

If the OP doesn't give a shit, then why did he post a thread on an insignificant cherrypick of an irrelevant part of the interview while ignoring the shutdown, the ACA, the budget, political moves, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, Syria and Egypt? That is where the focus of the interview was...

Because he's selling myths, that's why. And you're buying. You already bought the idea that Obama's taking the active role and stirring the shit, rather than a simple passive answer to an unsolicited and insignificant question that it is.

Maybe he thought that time would been better spent asking Obama about his hypocrisy regarding the debt ceiling rather than asking Obama about the Redskins? .....

Kind of like Obama answering more questions about Travon Martin or Skip Gates than he did about Benghazi?......

The debt ceiling was discussed extensively in the interview (the transcript is posted), yet the only part of it that Roo seemed to think merited a thread was this.

My bad, i missed the part where Obama was asked why he called the Shrub unpatriotic for doing the same thing he's doing.........

 

[Kondor3]

"...He was asked the question at the end of the interview, and gave a completely non-committal, middle of the road answer. What exactly is inappropriate about that?"

Yes, I've seen the salient point myself...



The mere fact that he weighed-in on this subject is fueling controversy.

Lending credence to charges of racism and bias where, in actuality, a Rendering of Honors and Cultural Memorial was intended.

Lending Presidential Weight to charges of...

It sends the wrong message to a tiny, overly-sensitive and vocal group, getting attention and accommodation vastly disproportionate to their numbers...

It is another cog in the wheel of perpetuating a Victim Mentality...

It is another nail in the coffin of Racial Divisiveness...

It is the manufacturing and fabrication of Malevolent Intent when no such thing exists...

It was an ill-advised collection of remarks in a circumstance where the President should have remained carefully and guardedly neutral...

In my humble opinion...

 

[skye]

This is an interesting article about the topic...."How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur?" and the answer is:" it’s unclear how many Native Americans think “Redskins” is a racial slur."

In other words it's really a storm in a teacup created by the progressive left .... and all this arguing is much ado about nothing.



October 8, 2013
.How Many Native Americans Think ?Redskins? is a Slur? « CBS DC

 

[Pogo]

"...He was asked the question at the end of the interview, and gave a completely non-committal, middle of the road answer. What exactly is inappropriate about that?"

Yes, I've seen the salient point myself...



The mere fact that he weighed-in on this subject is fueling controversy.

The question, inane as it is, was posed. What would you have a President do -- sit in stony silence when a question is asked?

Lending credence to charges of racism and bias where, in actuality, a Rendering of Honors and Cultural Memorial was intended.

What "charge" of racism and bias would this be?

Let's roll the tape:
"I don't think there are any Redskins fans that mean offense..."

That's it.

Lending Presidential Weight to charges of...

It sends the wrong message to a tiny, overly-sensitive and vocal group, getting attention and accommodation vastly disproportionate to their numbers...

What "message"?

It is another cog in the wheel of perpetuating a Victim Mentality...

How?

It is another nail in the coffin of Racial Divisiveness...

Isn't that desirable?

It is the manufacturing and fabrication of Malevolent Intent when no such thing exists...

Where is there anything about "intent"?

It was an ill-advised collection of remarks in a circumstance where the President should have remained carefully and guardedly neutral...

In my humble opinion...

Uh -- it is neutral. Where is it not?

As noted earlier, the POTUS has no say in how a commercial business (which is certainly what an NFL team is) sets its image or its name. Therefore regardless what he says or thinks about it, it cannot by definiton be a Presidential question. It's a personal question. As such, it is within the interview the equivalent of what we in this environment would call "off topic".

But to take a simple passive response to a meaningless question and try to trump it up to "Obama declares Washington football team shall be changed by royal fiat" is, to look at the interview, dishonest.

 

[Pogo]

This is an interesting article about the topic...."How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur?" and the answer is:" it’s unclear how many Native Americans think “Redskins” is a racial slur."

In other words it's really a storm in a teacup created by the progressive left .... and all this arguing is much ado about nothing.



October 8, 2013
.How Many Native Americans Think ?Redskins? is a Slur? « CBS DC

Actually -- Roo created this thread. He's the clown trying to make this into an issue. He and the hack reporter he used for an article.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 answered a question. If he ignored it you would still denigrate him, 'cause you are a racist and an asshole.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I submit that redskin, like ****** (though not to the same degree) was always the word of the oppressor for the oppressed..."

Or, in this case, the Victor, for the Vanquished.

But words and meanings oftentimes evolve and morph into different things; even during their active lifetimes, never mind at a distance of several generations removed from The Troubles.

I believe that you have Logic on your side, in saying 'If we would not name a team the Boston Negroes', then why would we...?

But logic does not always win the day, even if it usually should...

I think that what we are looking at here is a huge, massive, nationwide case of Politically Correct Overload...

Exhaustion at the sheer number of cultural and societal changes that have been force-fed to the American Public in recent decades, for no better reason than because if offends Group A or B...

And where, in so many cases (as seems to the case here), no such offense was intended, or, as seems to be the case here, an actual Rendering of Honors and Remembrance was intended, rather than anything derogatory or denigrating or malevolent...

What you appear to be seeing here is - not surprisingly - a visceral 'Go <bleep> yourself' -caliber reaction to decades of Political Correctness...

Amongst a population that has - in large part - becoming thoroughly sick and tired of having others dictate their verbiage to them, and being allowed to read malevolent intent into the most honorable and innocent of things... a phenomenon that we are seeing with increasing frequency in our own present times... a frequency that should set off alarm bells with Political Correctness Advocates... informing them that they're pushing their luck and that the public is increasingly shifting away from them due to overuse and an overplaying of the race card and similar tactics...

It's called Political Correctness Gone Mad... decades of it... and the inevitable Reaction.

Entirely understandable.

And quite commonplace, by now, amongst a great many of People of Goodwill, who have been saturated with this sort of shit for decades on-end, and who have finally had a bellyful of it, and who are beginning to speak-out against it...

In actuality, this seems to have little to do with the feelings of Native Folk...

And far more to do with visceral reaction to the 100,000th manifestation of Political Correctness being thrown-up in the faces...

A lot of good folks are sick of it...

And are saying: "Godammit... enough of this shit already!"

I sometimes take-up that same banner, on some things, and sometimes I don't... not all change is bad...

Although I will man-up and say that I stand with them in this matter, as a way of saying "Enough!" and as a matter of sheer personal opinion or preference, rather than as a result of any particular logic.

That's my take on it, anyway, for whatever little that's worth...

 

[driveby]

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 answered a question. If he ignored it you would still denigrate him, 'cause you are a racist and an asshole.

Wrong race card, go back to your deck and pull the correct one numbnuts......

 

[skye]

This is an interesting article about the topic...."How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur?" and the answer is:" it’s unclear how many Native Americans think “Redskins” is a racial slur."

In other words it's really a storm in a teacup created by the progressive left .... and all this arguing is much ado about nothing.



October 8, 2013
.How Many Native Americans Think ?Redskins? is a Slur? « CBS DC

Actually -- Roo created this thread. He's the clown trying to make this into an issue. He and the hack reporter he used for an article.

I agree with the OP. It says that Obama should mind his own business.

If a great percentage of Native Americans don't care ...why should he??? what is it to him???

 

[Asclepias]

This is an interesting article about the topic...."How Many Native Americans Think &#8216;Redskins&#8217; is a Slur?" and the answer is:" it&#8217;s unclear how many Native Americans think &#8220;Redskins&#8221; is a racial slur."

In other words it's really a storm in a teacup created by the progressive left .... and all this arguing is much ado about nothing.



October 8, 2013
.How Many Native Americans Think ?Redskins? is a Slur? « CBS DC

Actually -- Roo created this thread. He's the clown trying to make this into an issue. He and the hack reporter he used for an article.

I agree with the OP. It says that Obama should mind his own business.

If a great percentage of Native Americans don't care ...why should he??? what is it to him???

He was minding his business and someone asked him his personal opinion. What makes you think a greater percentage of native americans dont care?

 

[Kondor3]

"...He was minding his business and someone asked him his personal opinion."

You know as well as anyone else that the President is a Public Person... ALL of his opinions, when publicly expressed, become 'political' in nature.

 

[Pogo]

This is an interesting article about the topic...."How Many Native Americans Think &#8216;Redskins&#8217; is a Slur?" and the answer is:" it&#8217;s unclear how many Native Americans think &#8220;Redskins&#8221; is a racial slur."

In other words it's really a storm in a teacup created by the progressive left .... and all this arguing is much ado about nothing.



October 8, 2013
.How Many Native Americans Think ?Redskins? is a Slur? « CBS DC

Actually -- Roo created this thread. He's the clown trying to make this into an issue. He and the hack reporter he used for an article.

I agree with the OP. It says that Obama should mind his own business.

If a great percentage of Native Americans don't care ...why should he??? what is it to him???

He was minding his own business. The interviewer brought it up. Again what would you have a President do -- sit there and say nothing?

Roo and his hack reporter picked this single, irrelevant, meaningless, inane question out of an interview that covered the government shutdown, the ACA, the budget and debt ceiling, machinations in Congress, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, Syria and Egypt, which were the main points. And this throwaway question about the local football team is what Roo chooses to make an issue of, out of all that.

Maybe you mean Roo should mind his own bidness?

 

[Asclepias]

"...He was minding his business and someone asked him his personal opinion."

You know as well as anyone else that the President is a Public Person - ALL of his opinions, when publicly expressed, become 'political' in nature.

Sounds like a personal problem of the people judging him for it to me. Should he avoid the question?