• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Obama butt in changing the name of the Washington Redskins?

Should Obama butt in changing the name of the Washington Redskins?


  • Total voters
    35
This amuses me greatly. Navy Pride (not a liberal) makes the thread, APACHERAT (not a liberal), predictably backs him up, but it's the "liberals" who are "making a big deal out of it." I don't see anyone making a big deal out of it except for these two.
 
This amuses me greatly. Navy Pride (not a liberal) makes the thread, APACHERAT (not a liberal), predictably backs him up, but it's the "liberals" who are "making a big deal out of it." I don't see anyone making a big deal out of it except for these two.
No, they're just reacting to those outside of DP who are making a big deal out of it. That's what DP is... a place to discuss issues of the day.
 
I am thinking we have enough problems facing this country so should the President butt in?

I hate doing this to you, since facts are your worst enemy, but you are, as always ,dead wrong. Here is the AP story: News from The Associated Press

President Barack Obama says he would "think about changing" the Washington Redskins' name if he owned the football team as he waded into the controversy involving a word many consider offensive to Native Americans.
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.
"I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real legitimate concerns that people have about these things," he said in the interview, which was conducted Friday at the White House.
An avid sports fan who roots for his hometown Chicago Bears, Obama said he doesn't think Washington football fans are purposely trying to offend American Indians. "I don't want to detract from the wonderful Redskins fans that are here. They love their team and rightly so," he said.

He did not "butt in", he responded to a question. If Obama does not answer a question, you would bitch about him ducking questions, when he answers questions, you accuse him of butting in.

Further, he came down on the side of not taking a side in the issue, and looked at both sides of the issue. Damn him for a reasoned, measured response...
 
I am thinking we have enough problems facing this country so should the President butt in?

What makes you believe that the President is not allowed to enjoy the Freedom of Speech?

You clearly have a problem with Obama voicing his opinion. So tell me, why do you believe he should be denied his first amendment rights?
 
I'm tempted to make a mockery poll of "Should we strip the Presidential office of first amendment rights"

Obama could cure cancer tomorrow and the poll would be "should Obama have delayed so long curing cancer?"
 
He's already involved himself in this. The one thing I really don't like about today's age is president's lowering themselves to late night talk show appearences and getting involved with stupid stuff like a NFL name.

It can certainly be overdone, but I think a certain amount of it serves to humanize the Presidents. Appearing on them all the time would be unprofessional, but an occasional visit to Colbert Report or something like that, I don't have a problem with.
 
Redskin is a racial slur. The people who blame the "PC-tards" simply don't care that it's a racial slur.

It has been used as a racial slur, and at times still is

Just as Yankee has been used as an ethnic slur, an at time still is

However, both words that CAN/HAVE been used as slurs also are used as the names of sports teams.

Go up to a random person on the street and ask them to what you are referring when you use the word and you're far more likely to find people thinking you're speaking or a sports team than slurring a race or ethnic group. That's because words can have multiple meanings within society.
 
Yeah, Obama has already butted in with his opinion that the Redskins should change their names.

I'm going to support the new name, the Washington Tea Party Animals.

I can't wait to see the mascot. I'm hoping for disembodied teeth from the Cheshire cat but he wasn't at the party. Lets settle for the Mad Hatter, he's a natural tea partier.
 
It has been used as a racial slur, and at times still is

Just as Yankee has been used as an ethnic slur, an at time still is

However, both words that CAN/HAVE been used as slurs also are used as the names of sports teams.

Go up to a random person on the street and ask them to what you are referring when you use the word and you're far more likely to find people thinking you're speaking or a sports team than slurring a race or ethnic group. That's because words can have multiple meanings within society.

But something has happened over the past few decades, there's this white beard scratching liberal who is deciding for everyone else what words that no longer have multiple meanings and he decides what is derogatory or a slur and if you don't like it and ignore being told what you can and can not say, your labeled a racist.

When did "gringo" become a derogatory term in reference to Americans ? Just with in the past couple of decades ? It wasn't consider a derogatory term before the 70's. History isn't even sure how the word gringo was coined. Most believe during the Mexican-American war. Some believe that Mexicans picked up from a song American soldiers use to sing, "Green Grow the Lilacs." While others believe it has to do with gibberish.

In my entire life I never witnessed any American punching a Mexican in the nose for being called a gringo.
But are we suppose to label every Mexican who uses the word as being a racist ?

In the Declaration of Independence, American Indians are referred to as savages. Has the political left ruled yet if we can use the word savage even when not in reference to Native Americans ? If not I'm sure they soon will. As soon as they hear some American soldier calling Al Qaeda savages, the PC left will label the word as a derogatory term.
 
I can't wait to see the mascot. I'm hoping for disembodied teeth from the Cheshire cat but he wasn't at the party. Lets settle for the Mad Hatter, he's a natural tea partier.

I was thinking more along the lines of bouncing up and down big cajones.
 
No one is offended by the name of the team of "Redskins." That is just diversionary race-baiting as is typical.
 
No one is offended by the name of the team of "Redskins." That is just diversionary race-baiting as is typical.

Not true. I once went to a Vikings game against the Redskins, and there was a full-on native american protest happening outside. It absolutely does piss some people off.
 
No one is offended by the name of the team of "Redskins." That is just diversionary race-baiting as is typical.

There are some people offended by the name

Those people, by all reasonable accounts, are a massive minority of the Native American population and a small minority of the normal population. The only group where you could probably say a majority of folks take offense to it are with white sports reporters who think they know better than the majority of native Americans about what should or shouldn't offend them.
 
How many? Based on your wording I'm presuming one.

The big primary group protesting it currently was reportedly at the Green Bay game for a protest that drew national attention...and had 13 people attend.

More people showed up to a rally calling for the jaguars to sign Tim Tebow.

By the way, I don't think that's a reason for the jaguars to sign Tebow either...
 
Protesters. Seems pretty obvious that one can attend only one game at a time. How many protesters were you speaking of?

Then how "based on my wording" did you determine there was only one? Beyond wishful thinking, of course.

To answer your question, I'm not sure exactly. Probably a few dozen, maybe a bit more; which is fairly impressive given that it was about -10 degrees out at the time. Also given that we've killed most of the natives at this point. To be clear, I don't especially give a ****, because it's a sports team, which is about as important as what color my socks are. But pretending that this isn't offensive to some people is pretty ridiculous.
 
The big primary group protesting it currently was reportedly at the Green Bay game for a protest that drew national attention...and had 13 people attend.

More people showed up to a rally calling for the jaguars to sign Tim Tebow.

By the way, I don't think that's a reason for the jaguars to sign Tebow either...
And that's the thing. By all credible evidence, the people who object are actually a pretty small minority. Most Native Americans either approve or simply don't care. It only appears to be a big deal because the media lives for "controversies" like this because so many people are gullible enough to fall for it and believe that it is a big controversy when it is no such thing.

"The squeaky wheel gets the grease", for good or for bad, is effective.
 
Back
Top Bottom