• 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!

Tribal chief: No FedEx until Redskins change team name

Cephus said:
No, he'd simply change his criteria. If the studies indicated that 50% of Native Americans found it offensive, he'd say 50% was required. If it was 10% who found it offensive, he'd say the limit was 10%. He's just picking his numbers based on his desire to change the name.
Click to expand...

Show me where I did that? Stop making **** up. I posted a study conducted by a public university.
 
Top Cat said:
Show me where I did that? Stop making **** up. I posted a study conducted by a public university.
Click to expand...

And then picked a criteria based on that study. You didn't pick a criteria and then found evidence to back you up, you moved the goalposts to where you already had evidence you'd score a goal.
 
Top Cat said:
So you are suggesting the study wasn't credible? Link?
Click to expand...
I did not suggest, nor did I imply, any such thing. In fact, I did not make a comment specifically regarding your linked study in any way, shape, or form. But your dodge attempt is noted... and mildly humorous.
 
Top Cat said:
Bother you does it? How delicious the irony!



Physician heal thyself indeed.
Click to expand...

doesn't bother me at all i made a simple statment of fact. you don't tell me what to do. so no irony at all.
no healing needed.
 
radcen said:
I did not suggest, nor did I imply, any such thing. In fact, I did not make a comment specifically regarding your linked study in any way, shape, or form. But your dodge attempt is noted... and mildly humorous.
Click to expand...

My dodge? Are you ****ing kidding me here? You asked a question, I answered with what appears to be a credible study from a public university that suggests 67% of Native Americans find the name to be offensive. And you are suggesting I am dodging?

Priceless.
 
ludin said:
doesn't bother me at all i made a simple statment of fact. you don't tell me what to do. so no irony at all.
no healing needed.
Click to expand...

You're just fine with it when you do it. Got it.
 
Cephus said:
And then picked a criteria based on that study. You didn't pick a criteria and then found evidence to back you up, you moved the goalposts to where you already had evidence you'd score a goal.
Click to expand...

Bull****. He created the rhetorical question.

I am not the one to decide what percentage of people it takes to be legitimate. All I did was find a study that suggests 2/3 are offended. That sure seems like a meaningful number to me.
 
Top Cat said:
Bull****. He created the rhetorical question.

I am not the one to decide what percentage of people it takes to be legitimate. All I did was find a study that suggests 2/3 are offended. That sure seems like a meaningful number to me.
Click to expand...

And then you declared that 2/3 is the number it ought to take to require a change. It was an arbitrary choice, made because you had a single study that suggested that number. As I said, had you found a study that only had 20% of Native Americans offended, you'd have said 20% was enough to require a change.
 
iliveonramen said:
On this issue? Hate and spite are the glue that holds the rightwing coalition together.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Yea, that's why the Prog/Lib manual demands anyone not complying with the covenents of the ideology be sought out and destroyed both personally and professionally. The tolerant left in all it's glory, as long as what is being tolerated meets the assigned agenda.

The PC covenant is probably one of the more curious of the offensives used to eliminate others. What was once an honor has now become offensive, just because. What an awesome way to "Progress".
 
sangha said:
Mob grazing is environmentally sound
Click to expand...

Any system can be environmentally sound, what was not sustainable was the population of Bison. The natural system was greatly disturbed as evidenced by the population explosion resulting from the death of many NAs.

Pretending NAs were any more environmentally aware than the next populace is nonsense. They exploited their environment to the extent possible, just like everyone else.
 
Top Cat said:
My dodge? Are you ****ing kidding me here? You asked a question, I answered with what appears to be a credible study from a public university that suggests 67% of Native Americans find the name to be offensive. And you are suggesting I am dodging?

Priceless.
Click to expand...
You questioned my questioning of your link... when I made no comment or inference whatsoever regarding your link. That's a textbook dodge. Is the depth of your conviction really so shallow that you need to resort to dime store debate tactics?

But hey, let's play along. Please quote my statement and point out the specific words I used where I questioned your linked study.

Go for it!
 
iliveonramen said:
On this issue? Hate and spite are the glue that holds the rightwing coalition together.
Click to expand...

if you notice it is only liberals frothing at the mouth over this.
 
Top Cat said:
Bull****. He created the rhetorical question.

I am not the one to decide what percentage of people it takes to be legitimate. All I did was find a study that suggests 2/3 are offended. That sure seems like a meaningful number to me.
Click to expand...
Why not? You must have some idea of what a reasonable societal standard should be. Or, did you just render your entire position moot?
 
ludin said:
if you notice it is only liberals frothing at the mouth over this.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed that, I only went through the first couple of pages before it turned into a rightwing bash fest on the tribal chief but it was a lot of hate and "man" up directed at a guy that has every right to speak his mind or protest.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL.

Yea, that's why the Prog/Lib manual demands anyone not complying with the covenents of the ideology be sought out and destroyed both personally and professionally. The tolerant left in all it's glory, as long as what is being tolerated meets the assigned agenda.
Click to expand...

I must of skipped out early because the manual was never passed to me. Last I checked there seems to be a lot of folks that are doing pretty well in life and are openly conservative.

The PC covenant is probably one of the more curious of the offensives used to eliminate others. What was once an honor has now become offensive, just because. What an awesome way to "Progress".
Click to expand...
Yup, there's a lot of offensive terms and images that are accepted by the public. I actually call that progress but I know you folks yearn for the good old days.
 
Top Cat said:
My dodge? Are you ****ing kidding me here? You asked a question, I answered with what appears to be a credible study from a public university that suggests 67% of Native Americans find the name to be offensive. And you are suggesting I am dodging?

Priceless.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's a **** TON of serious, legitimate questions about that study that aren't just speculative or opinion in nature but are directly related to the long established methods of scientific polling.

Hopefully you may have better luck answering some of the questions I have about it than the last poster that pointed to it...because they provided nothing, and I've not been able to find anything myself.

Do you have a link to the actual poll itself? All I've found was a press release.

Do you have any information on what the methodology of the poll was. Scientific polls have this information included, but this particular press release did not. The little they spoke of the methodology suggested it was anything but a legitimate scientifically conducted poll. Rather than undergoing random sampling they inserted a purposeful bias into the process by going to specific locations and areas and only polling people there.

To give an example, this would be like going into downtown Harlem or Compton, taking a poll about an issue of racism, and then proclaiming that as evidence of what "african americans" the country over believe and experience. That is in no way, shape, or form a legitimate method of scientifically conducting the polling process.

Now imagine that such a tactic is defended bu the pollster because he simply doesn't believe that a black person not living in Compton or Harlem isn't a "real black person", or who doesn't belong to the NCAAP or another black civil rights group, isn't a "real" black person regardless of their ancestry or identification. This is effectivley what was done here to the best I can figure given the fact they haven't publicly published the poll.

Do you have any information about the margin of error in this poll. Again, that is something routinely found within any scientifically conducted poll...yet I've been able to find, nor have been provided, any information regarding this.

I think you're misplacing your trust in this particular poll Top Cat, banking it only on the fact it's from a "public university" (ignoring that it's from an individual in a public university that has a distinct potential motivation to be biased and who has a predetermined stance on the issue, unlike the other major poll done on this matter) instead of actually looking at the meat of the poll.

Trusting a news site that is one of the biggest offenders for reposting and reprinting exaggerated, dishonest, or just flat out WRONG information in the name of getting facebook hits and creating click bait is not a wise thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Actually, there's a **** TON of questions about that study.

Hopefully you may have better luck answering some of the questions I have about it than the last poster that pointed to it...because they provided nothing, and I've not been able to find anything myself.

Do you have a link to the actual poll itself? All I've found was a press release..
Click to expand...

I realize that being a WA fan it's pretty hard to be unbiased. Ha ha. As to the study no. I just googled it.
 
iliveonramen said:
I must of skipped out early because the manual was never passed to me. Last I checked there seems to be a lot of folks that are doing pretty well in life and are openly conservative.


Yup, there's a lot of offensive terms and images that are accepted by the public. I actually call that progress but I know you folks yearn for the good old days.
Click to expand...

Oh, it quite obvious the covenants are well represented, no matter their origin.

As to the PC issue, the hilarity is that its basis is held in the definition of "fad", and will always be nothing more than a tool to belittle the next group in line who was caught unaware of the most recent change in tide.

How that is supposed to improve society is anyone's guess, but it's wispy nature most certainly echoes the Liberal/Progressive Movement.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, there's a **** TON of questions about that study.

Hopefully you may have better luck answering some of the questions I have about it than the last poster that pointed to it...because they provided nothing, and I've not been able to find anything myself.

Do you have a link to the actual poll itself? All I've found was a press release.

Do you have any information on what the methodology of the poll was. Scientific polls have this information included, but this particular press release did not. The little they spoke of the methodology suggested it was anything but a legitimate scientifically conducted poll. Rather than undergoing random sampling they inserted a purposeful bias into the process by going to specific locations and areas and only polling people there.

To give an example, this would be like going into downtown Harlem or Compton, taking a poll about an issue of racism, and then proclaiming that as evidence of what "african americans" the country over believe and experience. That is in no way, shape, or form a legitimate method of scientifically conducting the polling process.

Do you have any information about the margin of error in this poll. Again, that is something routinely found within any scientifically conducted poll...yet I've been able to find, nor have been provided, any information regarding this.

I think you're misplacing your trust in this particular poll Top Cat, banking it only on the fact it's from a "public university" (ignoring that it's from an individual in a public university that has a distinct potential motivation to be biased and who has a predetermined stance on the issue, unlike the other major poll done on this matter) instead of actually looking at the meat of the poll.

Trusting a news site that is one of the biggest offenders for reposting and reprinting exaggerated, dishonest, or just flat out WRONG information in the name of getting facebook hits and creating click bait is not a wise thing to do.
Click to expand...

My position on this is reasonably simple. We both know that if the name "Boston Blackskins" or some such derivation was around, it would be changed. Just as if the Washington Whiteskins would be changed.

The only reason the name isn't getting changed is money. I suspect we can agree to that.
 
Top Cat said:
I realize that being a WA fan it's pretty hard to be unbiased. Ha ha. As to the study no. I just googled it.
Click to expand...

So was that first line supposed to be a joke, or an actual attempt to just write off all the actual legitimate issues I put forward?
 
Zyphlin said:
So was that first line supposed to be a joke, or an actual attempt to just write off all the actual legitimate issues I put forward?
Click to expand...

See my next post. And although it wasn't that, it certainly has to have an impact. You're a homer. Admit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom