Redskins changing their name

[BE Anti-Racist]

By some measure I get it now. See PROGS poison everything and OMG if Redskin is so offensive I guess we better deliver them from another melt-down. If it weren't for rewarding bad behavior it's sure as FUCK worth it to hear them just STFU. The NFL is PROG corrupted to begin with, why do you think interest in NFL and NBA are on the decline? You know, Lebron James tells us the USA is fucked up, white privileged yackity yack while he's formally bent-over for a train of Chinese. Tells me all I need to know about PROG-athletics.

Anyway, some Redskin replacement names are being considered. I like the shit out of "Hogs", though I suppose we'd be insulting fat chicks which is why it's in 3rd place. The majority likes "Redtails" WTF is a Redtail? come out and say it so we're sure it's not offensive yet. The majority thinks Budweiser is the best beer too, and Dementia I mean Biden is best-suited for the most powerful position in the world.

What other name replacements would be good for the conversion of Redskins? Perhaps the Washington Snowflakes, though the Washington Recoils has a ring to it. At least we're not singling out someone's skin. Since we're not supposed to distinguish skin color, how about the Black National Anthem before games? And WTF is a black national anthem anyway, I thought black citizens were American Citizens, but PROGS says they're below or above it and must be segregated.

Does any know WTF PROGS are doing anymore, because they sure don't.

Black national anthem is an anthem created by black to promote strength and unity. Since we say the US national anthem and and dont say the part of the anthem that talks about killing slaves and other black (I can paste that verse here if you want) why not say the black national anthem. Me as a black man have said an anthem all my live that was written and promoted the killing of black people. Alot of white people dont know about that verse. We stop saying that verse in the 1940's to blatantly racist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

By some measure I get it now. See PROGS poison everything and OMG if Redskin is so offensive I guess we better deliver them from another melt-down. If it weren't for rewarding bad behavior it's sure as FUCK worth it to hear them just STFU. The NFL is PROG corrupted to begin with, why do you think interest in NFL and NBA are on the decline? You know, Lebron James tells us the USA is fucked up, white privileged yackity yack while he's formally bent-over for a train of Chinese. Tells me all I need to know about PROG-athletics.

Anyway, some Redskin replacement names are being considered. I like the shit out of "Hogs", though I suppose we'd be insulting fat chicks which is why it's in 3rd place. The majority likes "Redtails" WTF is a Redtail? come out and say it so we're sure it's not offensive yet. The majority thinks Budweiser is the best beer too, and Dementia I mean Biden is best-suited for the most powerful position in the world.

What other name replacements would be good for the conversion of Redskins? Perhaps the Washington Snowflakes, though the Washington Recoils has a ring to it. At least we're not singling out someone's skin. Since we're not supposed to distinguish skin color, how about the Black National Anthem before games? And WTF is a black national anthem anyway, I thought black citizens were American Citizens, but PROGS says they're below or above it and must be segregated.

Does any know WTF PROGS are doing anymore, because they sure don't.

Black national anthem is an anthem created by black to promote strength and unity. Since we say the US national anthem and and dont say the part of the anthem that talks about killing slaves and other black (I can paste that verse here if you want) why not say the black national anthem. Me as a black man have said an anthem all my live that was written and promoted the killing of black people. Alot of white people dont know about that verse. We stop saying that verse in the 1940's to blatantly racist.

Good idea. Then perhaps we can sing the Asian anthem, the middle-east anthem, the Jewish anthem, the Hispanic anthem, the white anthem.

I know there are probably no such things, but we'll do like the blacks did, we'll just make them.

After all, nothing says united more than every group having their anthem sung at sporting events. In fact, why even have the event at all? Just go there to sing anthems all day.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not in to football, but I think redskins is kinda..tacky. How would players think of the name WhiteTrash, or Crackers but none were white?

Again i ask why we seem to are about things FOR other races?

Maybe it's simply acknowledging and understanding the complaints of other races.

It wasn't white people who cared. It was Native American's. They complained for years. Sometimes it takes awhile. Unfortunately many still think everything is about themselves. Heck, some still believe blacks should still have to ride in the back of the bus.

Could you turn that on me and tell me I'm not giving racists my time to listen to their complaints? I've heard them. The president may think they are good people also but I really don't.

Most studies I've seen said most native Americans did not care.

Because 5% may care is not valid to force the issue.

And stop the TRUMP IS RACIST sideshow Bob shit. A distraction for the emotionally handicapped.

Nope, not going to stop. At the beginning of his presidency I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I said that I didn't know that he was a racist but he knew he had to appeal to the racists to win. He has now fully boarded that train.

He has? Exactly how so?

Could I really convince someone that argued that "Redskin" was a positive thing?

It's not supposed to be positive or negative. It's a name for crying out loud. Did you watch that video I posted? The native American said those Indian names and logos were to honor our native Americans, not bash or mock them.

Think of how Fn ridiculous this is. Some white cop accidentally killed a black suspect, and because of that, the country has to change entirely. We have to get rid of the Chiefs. We have to get rid of the Cleveland Indians. We have to remove Aunt Jemima, we have to remove the Indian from Land O Lakes butter, which is made in my state. They are about ten minutes from Kent State university. We have to get rid of Uncle Ben. We have to get rid of George Washington, and we have to get rid of Christopher Columbus. It's like the Fn country has gone mad.

It isn't about any one instance as much as you want to think it was. The one instance simply told millions of American's that they could no longer ignore and pretend there isn't an issue. Even Barr has finally admitted there is a problem.

Unfair policing of African Americans a 'widespread phenomenon,' Attorney General Barr says

Only one more step from there.

So he was wrong once. Big deal, he too was trying to be politically correct.

Blacks generally ignore authority more than whites, so police have to be prepared for that. I experienced that just last night, or I should say very early this morning.

While blacks make up 13% of our population, they are also involved in most of the violent crime. So of course there is much more interaction between police and blacks, and of course they will find themselves getting shot by police at a higher rate per capita.

So who makes up all these lies that it's only blacks who are shot, or killed, or killed without a weapon? The media. If they broadcasted a story about an unarmed white getting shot and killed by police, it's not worth reporting on. Why? Because blacks certainly won't care, and we whites will just shrug our shoulders and say "the asshoole probably got what he deserved."

The media isn't looking for that. They are looking to promote protests. They are hoping for riots. They love civil unrest, and that's why they do it. The longer they can prolong the problems, the better for them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The term "redskin" has always been a slur.

No, it never was. Nobody names a team as a joke or insult.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

Redskin - Wikipedia

I really didn't need to point this out to you though.

Like I did with football, I'm just not going to watch it ever again. I have 300 channels to choose from. I don't need to watch cowering sports for entertainment, and neither do millions of other Americans.

You are wrong about the Indians. When they built the new stadium and the team was doing spectacular during the 90's, you couldn't get a ticket if your life counted on it. They had a historic record of sellouts. I remember them drawing large crowds even when people knew it would likely be a rain out. They attended just in case of that 5% chance they might see a live Indians game. Diehard fans who did stay ended up going home at 2:00 am on a work night. Anything to see a live Cleveland Indians game.

Thankfully there are still plenty of real Americans who are against this commie push for political correctness.

I am not wrong. I grew up a Cleveland Indians fan. Empty stadiums were the norm. Fact.

It has been noted by the team that they even considered changing the name when they moved into the new stadium, which by the way has changed it's name to appease corporate sponsors. Attendance is back down to among the lowest in the league despite having a decent team.

And you think all this talk about changing the mascot didn't play a part? It's not just the Indians, not just baseball, but nearly every sport has taken some sort of political stance. People are now talking about boycotting Nascar. I could care less about a bunch of cars driving around in circles, but I do know Nascar fans. They would risk death to see a race.

Look at Facebook. People are forwarding posts like Kaepernick taking a social stance on how blacks are treated by police, but joined a religion that still has black slaves. Or how Leboob James became a warrior for social justice, but is making tens of millions representing a company that has their shoes made by slave labor in China.

What happens when entertainers take a social or political stance is, about a third of their fans don't care. They just want to see you throw a football, act a part in a movie, or play your guitar. About another third will support your stance. The last third is repulsed by it and quit supporting you or even your entire industry. It just makes zero sense.

You call it about politics (which I find sad). I call it about people.

I don't care what you call it. You'd have to be blind to say there is no politics behind it.

Someone unfortunately tries and tie everything to politics. I find that sad.

On most all these issues, the left chooses the exact opposite side of the right. How can you say politics has no place in these matters? I'm not tying anything, it's just the way it is.

And the other way around. Remember when the "right" was against deficits?

I didn't actually say politics have no place. I said I find it sad that so many have to make everything about politics.

This is about people.

This isn't all that hard to figure out:

Support police: left against--right for.
Kneeling at Anthem: right against--left for.
Protests and riots: right against--left for.
Defunding police: right against--left for.
Politically correct sports teams: right against--left for.

Sure, you aren't interest in people only your things.

Where did I say that? People make up political parties. People on the left have the exact opposite stance than people on the right.

Well no. Well it depends on what year it is. Under Obama deficits were bad. Under Trump they don't matter.

Under Bush, wars were bad. Under Obama they were a "fight for freedom". I'm not saying that one side is any better than the other here. Politics. Sadly very few attach any sort of principles to their politics.

Many conservatives have criticized Trump for the spending. However, on all other issues, he's more than satisfactory. DumBama wasted our money on politics, like cash for clunkers, Obama care, all kinds of leftist goodies. Trump spent a lot of our money on national defense which benefits all Americans, not just people in his political party. It also benefits other nations that depend on the threat of our military to keep them safe.

Corporate farm bail outs was no different than cash for clunkers.

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

 

[pknopp]

The term "redskin" has always been a slur.

No, it never was. Nobody names a team as a joke or insult.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

Redskin - Wikipedia

I really didn't need to point this out to you though.

Like I did with football, I'm just not going to watch it ever again. I have 300 channels to choose from. I don't need to watch cowering sports for entertainment, and neither do millions of other Americans.

You are wrong about the Indians. When they built the new stadium and the team was doing spectacular during the 90's, you couldn't get a ticket if your life counted on it. They had a historic record of sellouts. I remember them drawing large crowds even when people knew it would likely be a rain out. They attended just in case of that 5% chance they might see a live Indians game. Diehard fans who did stay ended up going home at 2:00 am on a work night. Anything to see a live Cleveland Indians game.

Thankfully there are still plenty of real Americans who are against this commie push for political correctness.

I am not wrong. I grew up a Cleveland Indians fan. Empty stadiums were the norm. Fact.

It has been noted by the team that they even considered changing the name when they moved into the new stadium, which by the way has changed it's name to appease corporate sponsors. Attendance is back down to among the lowest in the league despite having a decent team.

And you think all this talk about changing the mascot didn't play a part? It's not just the Indians, not just baseball, but nearly every sport has taken some sort of political stance. People are now talking about boycotting Nascar. I could care less about a bunch of cars driving around in circles, but I do know Nascar fans. They would risk death to see a race.

Look at Facebook. People are forwarding posts like Kaepernick taking a social stance on how blacks are treated by police, but joined a religion that still has black slaves. Or how Leboob James became a warrior for social justice, but is making tens of millions representing a company that has their shoes made by slave labor in China.

What happens when entertainers take a social or political stance is, about a third of their fans don't care. They just want to see you throw a football, act a part in a movie, or play your guitar. About another third will support your stance. The last third is repulsed by it and quit supporting you or even your entire industry. It just makes zero sense.

You call it about politics (which I find sad). I call it about people.

I don't care what you call it. You'd have to be blind to say there is no politics behind it.

Someone unfortunately tries and tie everything to politics. I find that sad.

On most all these issues, the left chooses the exact opposite side of the right. How can you say politics has no place in these matters? I'm not tying anything, it's just the way it is.

And the other way around. Remember when the "right" was against deficits?

I didn't actually say politics have no place. I said I find it sad that so many have to make everything about politics.

This is about people.

Yep, only libs seem to forget Obama adding over $9 Trillion to the debt.

They aren't against spending. The problem is Obama didn't add the taxes to pay for it.

But yes, in 8 years Obama added that. Trump has added near 7 trillion in 3.5 years.

keep you BS straight.

Which President Increased U.S. Debt the Most?.

Your link does nothing to dispute what I said. In eight years Obama added 8.5 trillion. Trump has added over 6 trillion in just 3.5 years. Or are you wanting to compare 8 years to 3.5 years?

That's because you fricken can't read. Initially you said 7 trillion, now you're saying 6 trillion. You might want to read it another 2-3 times....dumbass.

I said, "Over 6 trillion". It's between 6 and 7 trillion. In 3.5 years.

 

[pknopp]

The term "redskin" has always been a slur.

No, it never was. Nobody names a team as a joke or insult.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

Redskin - Wikipedia

I really didn't need to point this out to you though.

Like I did with football, I'm just not going to watch it ever again. I have 300 channels to choose from. I don't need to watch cowering sports for entertainment, and neither do millions of other Americans.

You are wrong about the Indians. When they built the new stadium and the team was doing spectacular during the 90's, you couldn't get a ticket if your life counted on it. They had a historic record of sellouts. I remember them drawing large crowds even when people knew it would likely be a rain out. They attended just in case of that 5% chance they might see a live Indians game. Diehard fans who did stay ended up going home at 2:00 am on a work night. Anything to see a live Cleveland Indians game.

Thankfully there are still plenty of real Americans who are against this commie push for political correctness.

I am not wrong. I grew up a Cleveland Indians fan. Empty stadiums were the norm. Fact.

It has been noted by the team that they even considered changing the name when they moved into the new stadium, which by the way has changed it's name to appease corporate sponsors. Attendance is back down to among the lowest in the league despite having a decent team.

And you think all this talk about changing the mascot didn't play a part? It's not just the Indians, not just baseball, but nearly every sport has taken some sort of political stance. People are now talking about boycotting Nascar. I could care less about a bunch of cars driving around in circles, but I do know Nascar fans. They would risk death to see a race.

Look at Facebook. People are forwarding posts like Kaepernick taking a social stance on how blacks are treated by police, but joined a religion that still has black slaves. Or how Leboob James became a warrior for social justice, but is making tens of millions representing a company that has their shoes made by slave labor in China.

What happens when entertainers take a social or political stance is, about a third of their fans don't care. They just want to see you throw a football, act a part in a movie, or play your guitar. About another third will support your stance. The last third is repulsed by it and quit supporting you or even your entire industry. It just makes zero sense.

You call it about politics (which I find sad). I call it about people.

I don't care what you call it. You'd have to be blind to say there is no politics behind it.

Someone unfortunately tries and tie everything to politics. I find that sad.

On most all these issues, the left chooses the exact opposite side of the right. How can you say politics has no place in these matters? I'm not tying anything, it's just the way it is.

And the other way around. Remember when the "right" was against deficits?

I didn't actually say politics have no place. I said I find it sad that so many have to make everything about politics.

This is about people.

This isn't all that hard to figure out:

Support police: left against--right for.
Kneeling at Anthem: right against--left for.
Protests and riots: right against--left for.
Defunding police: right against--left for.
Politically correct sports teams: right against--left for.

Sure, you aren't interest in people only your things.

Where did I say that? People make up political parties. People on the left have the exact opposite stance than people on the right.

Well no. Well it depends on what year it is. Under Obama deficits were bad. Under Trump they don't matter.

Under Bush, wars were bad. Under Obama they were a "fight for freedom". I'm not saying that one side is any better than the other here. Politics. Sadly very few attach any sort of principles to their politics.

Many conservatives have criticized Trump for the spending. However, on all other issues, he's more than satisfactory. DumBama wasted our money on politics, like cash for clunkers, Obama care, all kinds of leftist goodies. Trump spent a lot of our money on national defense which benefits all Americans, not just people in his political party. It also benefits other nations that depend on the threat of our military to keep them safe.

Corporate farm bail outs was no different than cash for clunkers.

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

Where in Capitalism do we find taxpayers supporting business? You can say you agree with it but it is not capitalism.

Trump is doing the same. He see's farmers as a solid voting block.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The term "redskin" has always been a slur.

No, it never was. Nobody names a team as a joke or insult.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

Redskin - Wikipedia

I really didn't need to point this out to you though.

Like I did with football, I'm just not going to watch it ever again. I have 300 channels to choose from. I don't need to watch cowering sports for entertainment, and neither do millions of other Americans.

You are wrong about the Indians. When they built the new stadium and the team was doing spectacular during the 90's, you couldn't get a ticket if your life counted on it. They had a historic record of sellouts. I remember them drawing large crowds even when people knew it would likely be a rain out. They attended just in case of that 5% chance they might see a live Indians game. Diehard fans who did stay ended up going home at 2:00 am on a work night. Anything to see a live Cleveland Indians game.

Thankfully there are still plenty of real Americans who are against this commie push for political correctness.

I am not wrong. I grew up a Cleveland Indians fan. Empty stadiums were the norm. Fact.

It has been noted by the team that they even considered changing the name when they moved into the new stadium, which by the way has changed it's name to appease corporate sponsors. Attendance is back down to among the lowest in the league despite having a decent team.

And you think all this talk about changing the mascot didn't play a part? It's not just the Indians, not just baseball, but nearly every sport has taken some sort of political stance. People are now talking about boycotting Nascar. I could care less about a bunch of cars driving around in circles, but I do know Nascar fans. They would risk death to see a race.

Look at Facebook. People are forwarding posts like Kaepernick taking a social stance on how blacks are treated by police, but joined a religion that still has black slaves. Or how Leboob James became a warrior for social justice, but is making tens of millions representing a company that has their shoes made by slave labor in China.

What happens when entertainers take a social or political stance is, about a third of their fans don't care. They just want to see you throw a football, act a part in a movie, or play your guitar. About another third will support your stance. The last third is repulsed by it and quit supporting you or even your entire industry. It just makes zero sense.

You call it about politics (which I find sad). I call it about people.

I don't care what you call it. You'd have to be blind to say there is no politics behind it.

Someone unfortunately tries and tie everything to politics. I find that sad.

On most all these issues, the left chooses the exact opposite side of the right. How can you say politics has no place in these matters? I'm not tying anything, it's just the way it is.

And the other way around. Remember when the "right" was against deficits?

I didn't actually say politics have no place. I said I find it sad that so many have to make everything about politics.

This is about people.

This isn't all that hard to figure out:

Support police: left against--right for.
Kneeling at Anthem: right against--left for.
Protests and riots: right against--left for.
Defunding police: right against--left for.
Politically correct sports teams: right against--left for.

Sure, you aren't interest in people only your things.

Where did I say that? People make up political parties. People on the left have the exact opposite stance than people on the right.

Well no. Well it depends on what year it is. Under Obama deficits were bad. Under Trump they don't matter.

Under Bush, wars were bad. Under Obama they were a "fight for freedom". I'm not saying that one side is any better than the other here. Politics. Sadly very few attach any sort of principles to their politics.

Many conservatives have criticized Trump for the spending. However, on all other issues, he's more than satisfactory. DumBama wasted our money on politics, like cash for clunkers, Obama care, all kinds of leftist goodies. Trump spent a lot of our money on national defense which benefits all Americans, not just people in his political party. It also benefits other nations that depend on the threat of our military to keep them safe.

Corporate farm bail outs was no different than cash for clunkers.

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

Where in Capitalism do we find taxpayers supporting business? You can say you agree with it but it is not capitalism.

Trump is doing the same. He see's farmers as a solid voting block.

That's news to me. How do you figure they are a solid voting block? I never even heard any political ties between farmers and any political party.

It was your side that was saying Trump was really Fn the farmers during his trade agreement deals when he introduced tariffs. If they were such a solid voting block, why would he do that???

I don't agree with most bailouts or loans, but both sides have done it, so it's not really a partisan issue. If the government didn't get involved in farming, one day you might find yourself paying ten bucks for a head of lettuce, or twelve bucks for a small bag of carrots.

 

[iceberg]

The term "redskin" has always been a slur.

No, it never was. Nobody names a team as a joke or insult.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

Redskin - Wikipedia

I really didn't need to point this out to you though.

Like I did with football, I'm just not going to watch it ever again. I have 300 channels to choose from. I don't need to watch cowering sports for entertainment, and neither do millions of other Americans.

You are wrong about the Indians. When they built the new stadium and the team was doing spectacular during the 90's, you couldn't get a ticket if your life counted on it. They had a historic record of sellouts. I remember them drawing large crowds even when people knew it would likely be a rain out. They attended just in case of that 5% chance they might see a live Indians game. Diehard fans who did stay ended up going home at 2:00 am on a work night. Anything to see a live Cleveland Indians game.

Thankfully there are still plenty of real Americans who are against this commie push for political correctness.

I am not wrong. I grew up a Cleveland Indians fan. Empty stadiums were the norm. Fact.

It has been noted by the team that they even considered changing the name when they moved into the new stadium, which by the way has changed it's name to appease corporate sponsors. Attendance is back down to among the lowest in the league despite having a decent team.

And you think all this talk about changing the mascot didn't play a part? It's not just the Indians, not just baseball, but nearly every sport has taken some sort of political stance. People are now talking about boycotting Nascar. I could care less about a bunch of cars driving around in circles, but I do know Nascar fans. They would risk death to see a race.

Look at Facebook. People are forwarding posts like Kaepernick taking a social stance on how blacks are treated by police, but joined a religion that still has black slaves. Or how Leboob James became a warrior for social justice, but is making tens of millions representing a company that has their shoes made by slave labor in China.

What happens when entertainers take a social or political stance is, about a third of their fans don't care. They just want to see you throw a football, act a part in a movie, or play your guitar. About another third will support your stance. The last third is repulsed by it and quit supporting you or even your entire industry. It just makes zero sense.

You call it about politics (which I find sad). I call it about people.

I don't care what you call it. You'd have to be blind to say there is no politics behind it.

Someone unfortunately tries and tie everything to politics. I find that sad.

On most all these issues, the left chooses the exact opposite side of the right. How can you say politics has no place in these matters? I'm not tying anything, it's just the way it is.

And the other way around. Remember when the "right" was against deficits?

I didn't actually say politics have no place. I said I find it sad that so many have to make everything about politics.

This is about people.

This isn't all that hard to figure out:

Support police: left against--right for.
Kneeling at Anthem: right against--left for.
Protests and riots: right against--left for.
Defunding police: right against--left for.
Politically correct sports teams: right against--left for.

Sure, you aren't interest in people only your things.

Where did I say that? People make up political parties. People on the left have the exact opposite stance than people on the right.

Well no. Well it depends on what year it is. Under Obama deficits were bad. Under Trump they don't matter.

Under Bush, wars were bad. Under Obama they were a "fight for freedom". I'm not saying that one side is any better than the other here. Politics. Sadly very few attach any sort of principles to their politics.

Many conservatives have criticized Trump for the spending. However, on all other issues, he's more than satisfactory. DumBama wasted our money on politics, like cash for clunkers, Obama care, all kinds of leftist goodies. Trump spent a lot of our money on national defense which benefits all Americans, not just people in his political party. It also benefits other nations that depend on the threat of our military to keep them safe.

Corporate farm bail outs was no different than cash for clunkers.

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

Where in Capitalism do we find taxpayers supporting business? You can say you agree with it but it is not capitalism.

Trump is doing the same. He see's farmers as a solid voting block.

that's fine. the democrats seem to see FUCKING IDIOTS as a voting block also and are lapping them up.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Is it too late to submit suggestions?

In order to truly honor the natives of today it would only be appropriate to name them...

The Washington Drunken Blackjack Dealers

 

[pknopp]

The term "redskin" has always been a slur.

No, it never was. Nobody names a team as a joke or insult.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

Redskin - Wikipedia

I really didn't need to point this out to you though.

Like I did with football, I'm just not going to watch it ever again. I have 300 channels to choose from. I don't need to watch cowering sports for entertainment, and neither do millions of other Americans.

You are wrong about the Indians. When they built the new stadium and the team was doing spectacular during the 90's, you couldn't get a ticket if your life counted on it. They had a historic record of sellouts. I remember them drawing large crowds even when people knew it would likely be a rain out. They attended just in case of that 5% chance they might see a live Indians game. Diehard fans who did stay ended up going home at 2:00 am on a work night. Anything to see a live Cleveland Indians game.

Thankfully there are still plenty of real Americans who are against this commie push for political correctness.

I am not wrong. I grew up a Cleveland Indians fan. Empty stadiums were the norm. Fact.

It has been noted by the team that they even considered changing the name when they moved into the new stadium, which by the way has changed it's name to appease corporate sponsors. Attendance is back down to among the lowest in the league despite having a decent team.

And you think all this talk about changing the mascot didn't play a part? It's not just the Indians, not just baseball, but nearly every sport has taken some sort of political stance. People are now talking about boycotting Nascar. I could care less about a bunch of cars driving around in circles, but I do know Nascar fans. They would risk death to see a race.

Look at Facebook. People are forwarding posts like Kaepernick taking a social stance on how blacks are treated by police, but joined a religion that still has black slaves. Or how Leboob James became a warrior for social justice, but is making tens of millions representing a company that has their shoes made by slave labor in China.

What happens when entertainers take a social or political stance is, about a third of their fans don't care. They just want to see you throw a football, act a part in a movie, or play your guitar. About another third will support your stance. The last third is repulsed by it and quit supporting you or even your entire industry. It just makes zero sense.

You call it about politics (which I find sad). I call it about people.

I don't care what you call it. You'd have to be blind to say there is no politics behind it.

Someone unfortunately tries and tie everything to politics. I find that sad.

On most all these issues, the left chooses the exact opposite side of the right. How can you say politics has no place in these matters? I'm not tying anything, it's just the way it is.

And the other way around. Remember when the "right" was against deficits?

I didn't actually say politics have no place. I said I find it sad that so many have to make everything about politics.

This is about people.

This isn't all that hard to figure out:

Support police: left against--right for.
Kneeling at Anthem: right against--left for.
Protests and riots: right against--left for.
Defunding police: right against--left for.
Politically correct sports teams: right against--left for.

Sure, you aren't interest in people only your things.

Where did I say that? People make up political parties. People on the left have the exact opposite stance than people on the right.

Well no. Well it depends on what year it is. Under Obama deficits were bad. Under Trump they don't matter.

Under Bush, wars were bad. Under Obama they were a "fight for freedom". I'm not saying that one side is any better than the other here. Politics. Sadly very few attach any sort of principles to their politics.

Many conservatives have criticized Trump for the spending. However, on all other issues, he's more than satisfactory. DumBama wasted our money on politics, like cash for clunkers, Obama care, all kinds of leftist goodies. Trump spent a lot of our money on national defense which benefits all Americans, not just people in his political party. It also benefits other nations that depend on the threat of our military to keep them safe.

Corporate farm bail outs was no different than cash for clunkers.

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

Where in Capitalism do we find taxpayers supporting business? You can say you agree with it but it is not capitalism.

Trump is doing the same. He see's farmers as a solid voting block.

That's news to me. How do you figure they are a solid voting block? I never even heard any political ties between farmers and any political party.

It was your side that was saying Trump was really Fn the farmers during his trade agreement deals when he introduced tariffs. If they were such a solid voting block, why would he do that???

I don't agree with most bailouts or loans, but both sides have done it, so it's not really a partisan issue. If the government didn't get involved in farming, one day you might find yourself paying ten bucks for a head of lettuce, or twelve bucks for a small bag of carrots.

Partisan has nothing to do with it. You can't say you disagree with it when the other guy does it but then support your guy when he does and expect anyone to believe you.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

By some measure I get it now. See PROGS poison everything and OMG if Redskin is so offensive I guess we better deliver them from another melt-down. If it weren't for rewarding bad behavior it's sure as FUCK worth it to hear them just STFU. The NFL is PROG corrupted to begin with, why do you think interest in NFL and NBA are on the decline? You know, Lebron James tells us the USA is fucked up, white privileged yackity yack while he's formally bent-over for a train of Chinese. Tells me all I need to know about PROG-athletics.

Anyway, some Redskin replacement names are being considered. I like the shit out of "Hogs", though I suppose we'd be insulting fat chicks which is why it's in 3rd place. The majority likes "Redtails" WTF is a Redtail? come out and say it so we're sure it's not offensive yet. The majority thinks Budweiser is the best beer too, and Dementia I mean Biden is best-suited for the most powerful position in the world.

What other name replacements would be good for the conversion of Redskins? Perhaps the Washington Snowflakes, though the Washington Recoils has a ring to it. At least we're not singling out someone's skin. Since we're not supposed to distinguish skin color, how about the Black National Anthem before games? And WTF is a black national anthem anyway, I thought black citizens were American Citizens, but PROGS says they're below or above it and must be segregated.

Does any know WTF PROGS are doing anymore, because they sure don't.

Black national anthem is an anthem created by black to promote strength and unity. Since we say the US national anthem and and dont say the part of the anthem that talks about killing slaves and other black (I can paste that verse here if you want) why not say the black national anthem. Me as a black man have said an anthem all my live that was written and promoted the killing of black people. Alot of white people dont know about that verse. We stop saying that verse in the 1940's to blatantly racist.

Bullshit. The verse reads:
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave

Context Matters, here's the rest:
O say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

You call that racist because it suits, what's racist about the truth? Oh that's right, PROGS are taught to disrespect history too. Where in these lyrics are they criticizing slaves? The lyrics rhyme and have meaning. There is no racism here, please show us all how the lyrics were written and promoted killing blacks? That and didn't they remove the lyrics you find offensive for the national anthem? Yep, sure did, but that context thing, it's just not that convenient.

And what gives you the right to "your own" public national anthem? Is it that important to be seen as black as opposed a human and/or American? You're supporting segregation and racism.

BTW hireling is paid. The point was they and slaves could not be saved. You know, the truth you call racist and "promoting the killing of blacks". Should hirelings be offended too? Let me know when you meet one, and let me know when you meet a black slave too. My great grandmother was a slave, I knew her and she's white, boo hoo.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where in these lyrics are they criticizing slaves? The lyrics rhyme and have meaning. There is no racism here, please show us all how the lyrics were written and promoted killing blacks?

Now you know there is no way for him (her) to do that. Obviously a student of Louis Farrakhan.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The term "redskin" has always been a slur.

No, it never was. Nobody names a team as a joke or insult.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

Redskin - Wikipedia

I really didn't need to point this out to you though.

Like I did with football, I'm just not going to watch it ever again. I have 300 channels to choose from. I don't need to watch cowering sports for entertainment, and neither do millions of other Americans.

You are wrong about the Indians. When they built the new stadium and the team was doing spectacular during the 90's, you couldn't get a ticket if your life counted on it. They had a historic record of sellouts. I remember them drawing large crowds even when people knew it would likely be a rain out. They attended just in case of that 5% chance they might see a live Indians game. Diehard fans who did stay ended up going home at 2:00 am on a work night. Anything to see a live Cleveland Indians game.

Thankfully there are still plenty of real Americans who are against this commie push for political correctness.

I am not wrong. I grew up a Cleveland Indians fan. Empty stadiums were the norm. Fact.

It has been noted by the team that they even considered changing the name when they moved into the new stadium, which by the way has changed it's name to appease corporate sponsors. Attendance is back down to among the lowest in the league despite having a decent team.

And you think all this talk about changing the mascot didn't play a part? It's not just the Indians, not just baseball, but nearly every sport has taken some sort of political stance. People are now talking about boycotting Nascar. I could care less about a bunch of cars driving around in circles, but I do know Nascar fans. They would risk death to see a race.

Look at Facebook. People are forwarding posts like Kaepernick taking a social stance on how blacks are treated by police, but joined a religion that still has black slaves. Or how Leboob James became a warrior for social justice, but is making tens of millions representing a company that has their shoes made by slave labor in China.

What happens when entertainers take a social or political stance is, about a third of their fans don't care. They just want to see you throw a football, act a part in a movie, or play your guitar. About another third will support your stance. The last third is repulsed by it and quit supporting you or even your entire industry. It just makes zero sense.

You call it about politics (which I find sad). I call it about people.

I don't care what you call it. You'd have to be blind to say there is no politics behind it.

Someone unfortunately tries and tie everything to politics. I find that sad.

On most all these issues, the left chooses the exact opposite side of the right. How can you say politics has no place in these matters? I'm not tying anything, it's just the way it is.

And the other way around. Remember when the "right" was against deficits?

I didn't actually say politics have no place. I said I find it sad that so many have to make everything about politics.

This is about people.

This isn't all that hard to figure out:

Support police: left against--right for.
Kneeling at Anthem: right against--left for.
Protests and riots: right against--left for.
Defunding police: right against--left for.
Politically correct sports teams: right against--left for.

Sure, you aren't interest in people only your things.

Where did I say that? People make up political parties. People on the left have the exact opposite stance than people on the right.

Well no. Well it depends on what year it is. Under Obama deficits were bad. Under Trump they don't matter.

Under Bush, wars were bad. Under Obama they were a "fight for freedom". I'm not saying that one side is any better than the other here. Politics. Sadly very few attach any sort of principles to their politics.

Many conservatives have criticized Trump for the spending. However, on all other issues, he's more than satisfactory. DumBama wasted our money on politics, like cash for clunkers, Obama care, all kinds of leftist goodies. Trump spent a lot of our money on national defense which benefits all Americans, not just people in his political party. It also benefits other nations that depend on the threat of our military to keep them safe.

Corporate farm bail outs was no different than cash for clunkers.

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

Where in Capitalism do we find taxpayers supporting business? You can say you agree with it but it is not capitalism.

Trump is doing the same. He see's farmers as a solid voting block.

That's news to me. How do you figure they are a solid voting block? I never even heard any political ties between farmers and any political party.

It was your side that was saying Trump was really Fn the farmers during his trade agreement deals when he introduced tariffs. If they were such a solid voting block, why would he do that???

I don't agree with most bailouts or loans, but both sides have done it, so it's not really a partisan issue. If the government didn't get involved in farming, one day you might find yourself paying ten bucks for a head of lettuce, or twelve bucks for a small bag of carrots.

Partisan has nothing to do with it. You can't say you disagree with it when the other guy does it but then support your guy when he does and expect anyone to believe you.

You lost me. What "it" are you talking about? Can you give me an example by what was said in this topic?

 

[pknopp]

The term "redskin" has always been a slur.

No, it never was. Nobody names a team as a joke or insult.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

Redskin - Wikipedia

I really didn't need to point this out to you though.

Like I did with football, I'm just not going to watch it ever again. I have 300 channels to choose from. I don't need to watch cowering sports for entertainment, and neither do millions of other Americans.

You are wrong about the Indians. When they built the new stadium and the team was doing spectacular during the 90's, you couldn't get a ticket if your life counted on it. They had a historic record of sellouts. I remember them drawing large crowds even when people knew it would likely be a rain out. They attended just in case of that 5% chance they might see a live Indians game. Diehard fans who did stay ended up going home at 2:00 am on a work night. Anything to see a live Cleveland Indians game.

Thankfully there are still plenty of real Americans who are against this commie push for political correctness.

I am not wrong. I grew up a Cleveland Indians fan. Empty stadiums were the norm. Fact.

It has been noted by the team that they even considered changing the name when they moved into the new stadium, which by the way has changed it's name to appease corporate sponsors. Attendance is back down to among the lowest in the league despite having a decent team.

And you think all this talk about changing the mascot didn't play a part? It's not just the Indians, not just baseball, but nearly every sport has taken some sort of political stance. People are now talking about boycotting Nascar. I could care less about a bunch of cars driving around in circles, but I do know Nascar fans. They would risk death to see a race.

Look at Facebook. People are forwarding posts like Kaepernick taking a social stance on how blacks are treated by police, but joined a religion that still has black slaves. Or how Leboob James became a warrior for social justice, but is making tens of millions representing a company that has their shoes made by slave labor in China.

What happens when entertainers take a social or political stance is, about a third of their fans don't care. They just want to see you throw a football, act a part in a movie, or play your guitar. About another third will support your stance. The last third is repulsed by it and quit supporting you or even your entire industry. It just makes zero sense.

You call it about politics (which I find sad). I call it about people.

I don't care what you call it. You'd have to be blind to say there is no politics behind it.

Someone unfortunately tries and tie everything to politics. I find that sad.

On most all these issues, the left chooses the exact opposite side of the right. How can you say politics has no place in these matters? I'm not tying anything, it's just the way it is.

And the other way around. Remember when the "right" was against deficits?

I didn't actually say politics have no place. I said I find it sad that so many have to make everything about politics.

This is about people.

This isn't all that hard to figure out:

Support police: left against--right for.
Kneeling at Anthem: right against--left for.
Protests and riots: right against--left for.
Defunding police: right against--left for.
Politically correct sports teams: right against--left for.

Sure, you aren't interest in people only your things.

Where did I say that? People make up political parties. People on the left have the exact opposite stance than people on the right.

Well no. Well it depends on what year it is. Under Obama deficits were bad. Under Trump they don't matter.

Under Bush, wars were bad. Under Obama they were a "fight for freedom". I'm not saying that one side is any better than the other here. Politics. Sadly very few attach any sort of principles to their politics.

Many conservatives have criticized Trump for the spending. However, on all other issues, he's more than satisfactory. DumBama wasted our money on politics, like cash for clunkers, Obama care, all kinds of leftist goodies. Trump spent a lot of our money on national defense which benefits all Americans, not just people in his political party. It also benefits other nations that depend on the threat of our military to keep them safe.

Corporate farm bail outs was no different than cash for clunkers.

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

Where in Capitalism do we find taxpayers supporting business? You can say you agree with it but it is not capitalism.

Trump is doing the same. He see's farmers as a solid voting block.

That's news to me. How do you figure they are a solid voting block? I never even heard any political ties between farmers and any political party.

It was your side that was saying Trump was really Fn the farmers during his trade agreement deals when he introduced tariffs. If they were such a solid voting block, why would he do that???

I don't agree with most bailouts or loans, but both sides have done it, so it's not really a partisan issue. If the government didn't get involved in farming, one day you might find yourself paying ten bucks for a head of lettuce, or twelve bucks for a small bag of carrots.

Partisan has nothing to do with it. You can't say you disagree with it when the other guy does it but then support your guy when he does and expect anyone to believe you.

You lost me. What "it" are you talking about? Can you give me an example by what was said in this topic?

Deficits. I know, you will say you don't support it but then you'll vote for more of it so your words are worthless.

 

[Jitss617]

 

[meaner gene]

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

The "clunkers" are a lot like counterfeit money. You try to get it out of circulation by destroying it. You don't allow its redistribution. AKA "They were not sold to the lower income people of our country"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

The "clunkers" are a lot like counterfeit money. You try to get it out of circulation by destroying it. You don't allow its redistribution. AKA "They were not sold to the lower income people of our country"

Correct, he got them out of circulaiouton for the reasons I listed. It was all a political move which was my original point. No, counterfeit money is fake money. These were real drivable cars, probably many that could have served our lower income and minority communities who couldn't afford a new vehicle.

 

[iceberg]

The term "redskin" has always been a slur.

No, it never was. Nobody names a team as a joke or insult.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

Redskin - Wikipedia

I really didn't need to point this out to you though.

Like I did with football, I'm just not going to watch it ever again. I have 300 channels to choose from. I don't need to watch cowering sports for entertainment, and neither do millions of other Americans.

You are wrong about the Indians. When they built the new stadium and the team was doing spectacular during the 90's, you couldn't get a ticket if your life counted on it. They had a historic record of sellouts. I remember them drawing large crowds even when people knew it would likely be a rain out. They attended just in case of that 5% chance they might see a live Indians game. Diehard fans who did stay ended up going home at 2:00 am on a work night. Anything to see a live Cleveland Indians game.

Thankfully there are still plenty of real Americans who are against this commie push for political correctness.

I am not wrong. I grew up a Cleveland Indians fan. Empty stadiums were the norm. Fact.

It has been noted by the team that they even considered changing the name when they moved into the new stadium, which by the way has changed it's name to appease corporate sponsors. Attendance is back down to among the lowest in the league despite having a decent team.

And you think all this talk about changing the mascot didn't play a part? It's not just the Indians, not just baseball, but nearly every sport has taken some sort of political stance. People are now talking about boycotting Nascar. I could care less about a bunch of cars driving around in circles, but I do know Nascar fans. They would risk death to see a race.

Look at Facebook. People are forwarding posts like Kaepernick taking a social stance on how blacks are treated by police, but joined a religion that still has black slaves. Or how Leboob James became a warrior for social justice, but is making tens of millions representing a company that has their shoes made by slave labor in China.

What happens when entertainers take a social or political stance is, about a third of their fans don't care. They just want to see you throw a football, act a part in a movie, or play your guitar. About another third will support your stance. The last third is repulsed by it and quit supporting you or even your entire industry. It just makes zero sense.

You call it about politics (which I find sad). I call it about people.

I don't care what you call it. You'd have to be blind to say there is no politics behind it.

Someone unfortunately tries and tie everything to politics. I find that sad.

On most all these issues, the left chooses the exact opposite side of the right. How can you say politics has no place in these matters? I'm not tying anything, it's just the way it is.

And the other way around. Remember when the "right" was against deficits?

I didn't actually say politics have no place. I said I find it sad that so many have to make everything about politics.

This is about people.

This isn't all that hard to figure out:

Support police: left against--right for.
Kneeling at Anthem: right against--left for.
Protests and riots: right against--left for.
Defunding police: right against--left for.
Politically correct sports teams: right against--left for.

Sure, you aren't interest in people only your things.

Where did I say that? People make up political parties. People on the left have the exact opposite stance than people on the right.

Well no. Well it depends on what year it is. Under Obama deficits were bad. Under Trump they don't matter.

Under Bush, wars were bad. Under Obama they were a "fight for freedom". I'm not saying that one side is any better than the other here. Politics. Sadly very few attach any sort of principles to their politics.

Many conservatives have criticized Trump for the spending. However, on all other issues, he's more than satisfactory. DumBama wasted our money on politics, like cash for clunkers, Obama care, all kinds of leftist goodies. Trump spent a lot of our money on national defense which benefits all Americans, not just people in his political party. It also benefits other nations that depend on the threat of our military to keep them safe.

Corporate farm bail outs was no different than cash for clunkers.

It is very different. We all eat food, we all want affordable food, so there is no political reason for taking care of farmers. However why did DumBama start this cash for clunkers thing? Because newer vehicles get better milage, they have more pollution crap on it. They were not sold to the lower income people of our country so they had something to drive, or sold to third world countries, they were crushed like a soup can.

The secondary reason of course is he was trying to take care of his union buddies in the auto industry. After all, they contribute big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

Where in Capitalism do we find taxpayers supporting business? You can say you agree with it but it is not capitalism.

Trump is doing the same. He see's farmers as a solid voting block.

That's news to me. How do you figure they are a solid voting block? I never even heard any political ties between farmers and any political party.

It was your side that was saying Trump was really Fn the farmers during his trade agreement deals when he introduced tariffs. If they were such a solid voting block, why would he do that???

I don't agree with most bailouts or loans, but both sides have done it, so it's not really a partisan issue. If the government didn't get involved in farming, one day you might find yourself paying ten bucks for a head of lettuce, or twelve bucks for a small bag of carrots.

Partisan has nothing to do with it. You can't say you disagree with it when the other guy does it but then support your guy when he does and expect anyone to believe you.

Yet you do that all the time.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Beautiful....

Loading…

twitter.com

 

[FA_Q2]

LOL