• 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
26424066.jpg
 
I completely fail to see why the President elect should need to voice any kind of opinion on the subject one way or the other. It is frankly beneath his position.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I completely fail to see why the President elect should need to voice any kind of opinion on the subject one way or the other. It is frankly beneath his position.
Click to expand...

Because he has an opinion and, like you or I, he has every right to voice this opinion, like it or not.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Because he has an opinion and, like you or I, he has every right to voice this opinion, like it or not.
Click to expand...

He's an attention whore, and should frankly keep his opinions to himself.

In case you haven't noticed, our nation is facing far greater problems at the present moment than the question of whether or not some third rate football team should give themselves a more politically correct name.
 
Not no, but "hell no" .
Or - silly beyond belief..........
 
Gathomas88 said:
He's an attention whore, and should frankly keep his opinions to himself.

In case you haven't noticed, our nation is facing far greater problems at the present moment than the question of whether or not some third rate football team should give themselves a more politically correct name.
Click to expand...

Why should he but you should not? Because you happen to disagree with his opinion?

And, all this was during an interview with AP. Not exactly like he called a press conference to discuss it. He's a sports fan and he offered up his opinion, the same as anyone else.
 
joko104 said:
No one is offended by the name of the team of "Redskins." That is just diversionary race-baiting as is typical.
Click to expand...

Making **** up is not a good debate tactic. How many people are offended is debatable, but the fact that some are is not.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I completely fail to see why the President elect should need to voice any kind of opinion on the subject one way or the other. It is frankly beneath his position.
Click to expand...

A president without an opinion on issues is beneath the position. And again, you would be first in line to bitch if he had ducked a question in an interview.
 
Gathomas88 said:
He's an attention whore, and should frankly keep his opinions to himself.

In case you haven't noticed, our nation is facing far greater problems at the present moment than the question of whether or not some third rate football team should give themselves a more politically correct name.
Click to expand...

He was asked. Answering a question asked in an interview is now being an attention whore? Then every single president ever has been one. Well done.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am thinking we have enough problems facing this country so should the President butt in?
Click to expand...

He didn't butt in. It was an interview, the question was asked, he answered it. If he didn't, you would still complain, twist things around even further and pretend that Obama was refusing to comment on Native Americans - so he probably hates them too :roll:. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Really, this just goes to show how rabid some on the right have become. This should be a non story. Their hate is so large that they take Obama's remarks about a football team as some sort of new means to attack him. They are more concerned about this crap than the fact their country is about to default and any of the other hot topics that are actually worthy of reasonable discussion.

Keep this crap up instead of focussing on important issues and this is how America further declines. IF that happens, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
 
In NP's world, you aren't allowed to have an opinion...oh...unless you are a Republican, in which case, your opinion is the word of God.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am thinking we have enough problems facing this country so should the President butt in?
Click to expand...

This falls into the same category as Trayvon Martin and the arrest of the professor....none of his business.
 
His proper answer to the question should of been, "I'd prefer not to comment". [but we all know he can't do that]
 
Navy Pride said:
I am thinking we have enough problems facing this country so should the President butt in?
Click to expand...
A reporter poses the question regarding the football team and it's Mr. Obama who is butting in? Interesting. Although, "no comment" might have been a better answer.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Why should he but you should not? Because you happen to disagree with his opinion?
Click to expand...

The simple fact of the matter is that Obama goes deliberately out of his way to "butt into" these kinds of issues every chance he gets. No other president has done so.

He did so with the Trayvon Martin case, he did so with college basketball, and he's doing so now with these stupid comments on the Redskins. It's nothing less than blatant attention whoring.

And, all this was during an interview with AP. Not exactly like he called a press conference to discuss it. He's a sports fan and he offered up his opinion, the same as anyone else.
Click to expand...

The Obama Administration is notorious for strictly controlling the media's access to the president. It would be incredibly naïve to think that he did not take the interview in the first place without at least some idea of what questions might come up.

The entire story basically stinks to high heaven of being an artificially manufactured puff piece; nothing more, and nothing less.

It is a distraction, basically meant to draw attention away from his failings as a president.

Redress said:
A president without an opinion on issues is beneath the position.
Click to expand...

Whether or not a football team should change its name is not an "issue." It is a non-issue.

There are simply bigger fish to fry.

And again, you would be first in line to bitch if he had ducked a question in an interview.
Click to expand...

And again, it would be foolish to think that he didn't explicitly know that the question might've been coming, and plan accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
And again, you are being foolish if you think that he didn't explicitly know that the question might've been coming, and plan accordingly.
Click to expand...

He probably did know. If so, he planned on voicing his opinion. And then he voiced his opinion. What's the problem again?
 
uncleray said:
A reporter poses the question regarding the football team and it's Mr. Obama who is butting in? Interesting. Although, "no comment" might have been a better answer.
Click to expand...
If he'd refused to answer, he'd have been attacked for being evasive, out of touch, for insulting Native Americans or insulting football fans. The whole point of the hack (I refuse to call such people journalists) asking the question was to generate a story from the answer and negative stories sell better than positive ones. Any answer he could have given would have been spun in to pretty much the same article - it was probably half-written before he was even asked.
 
Deuce said:
He probably did know. If so, he planned on voicing his opinion. And then he voiced his opinion. What's the problem again?
Click to expand...

So that would be "butting in." It's par for the course where his track record is concerned.

I find it insulting that a POTUS would stop to talk about such things in the middle of a government shut down that he plays a role in perpetuating.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am thinking we have enough problems facing this country so should the President butt in?
Click to expand...

No! The President should not have butted in. I always assumed the name flattered Indians as it represents the toughness, intestinal fortitude, and perseverance of a football team and compares it to Redskins or American Indians.
 
HonestJoe said:
If he'd refused to answer, he'd have been attacked for being evasive, out of touch, for insulting Native Americans or insulting football fans. The whole point of the hack (I refuse to call such people journalists) asking the question was to generate a story from the answer and negative stories sell better than positive ones. Any answer he could have given would have been spun in to pretty much the same article - it was probably half-written before he was even asked.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that he would have been criticized for "evading" the question, but it was a no-win situation for him, and sometimes leaders have to choose the best option when both options suck. He still would have done better to decline and remain above the fray.
 
Zyphlin said:
Just as Yankee has been used as an ethnic slur
Click to expand...

At best, Yankee is a regional slur for people from New England. Not really any ethnicity per say - just white people from New England in its original context. Depending to where you go - Yankee can refer to an American, white American or people from New England. Last I heard, none of those were an ethnicity of any sort. Then again, the comparison is nonsense - as it's like comparing "cracker" and "nigger". Sure, if you want to play the semantics game, they're both slurs, but let's not kid ourselves into believing they carry the same weight with all people. Call a black guy a cracker, and you're not likely to get a response. Call him a nigger and see what happens.
 
Hatuey said:
At best, Yankee is a regional slur for people from New England. Not really any ethnicity per say - just white people from New England in its original context. Depending to where you go - Yankee can refer to an American, white American or people from New England. Last I heard, none of those were an ethnicity of any sort. Then again, the comparison is nonsense - as it's like comparing "cracker" and "nigger". Sure, if you want to play the semantics game, they're both slurs, but let's not kid ourselves into believing they carry the same weight with all people. Call a black guy a cracker, and you're not likely to get a response. Call him a nigger and see what happens.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely been used as an ethnic slur, whether it's used in it's standard outside of the US function referring to American's in general or its internal to the US function where it's typically referring to northerners, specifically those within New England. It's aimed at a population subgroup with a shared cultural tradition.

That said, I agree with you. The level of severity of the slurs of Yankee and Redskin are of a different levels. Know what else is of significantly different severities? The slurs of Redskin and Nigger. You're not finding predominantly black high schools in American proudly proclaiming themselves "The Niggers" as their schools name. You're not going to find a poll where 90% of the black population would have no problem with a team calling themselves "The Niggers". You're not going to find a state in the U.S. whose name in Bantu is "Black People".

None of that changes the fact I was pointing out, which is that words can change their societal meaning over time. More than that, SOME people seem to act like a slur is a slur is a slur is a slur and try to compare Redskin to Nigger. In such case, then Yankee absolutely is just as comparable because a slur is a slur. However, if you're going to recognize that there are different severity in regard to the use and context of various slurs, then one can't directly compare Redskin to Nigger because it just doesn't relate.
 
Presidents should opine only on matters of importance

Like broccoli and jelly beans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom