dagies Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Senator Brownback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I was going to say something but it wasn't this good. I absolutely support the message that says "what we did was wrong and would not be acceptable today". Of course it is unacceptable. That being said, why should the collective we have to be sorry for something we didn't do. None of us were alive back then. Also, most people that I know haven't committed an act of Violence against anyone. WASHINGTON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Of course it is unacceptable. That being said, why should the collective we have to be sorry for something we didn't do. None of us were alive back then. Also, most people that I know haven't committed an act of Violence against anyone. You are right. Our generation didn't do these things, but we are the benefactors of those that came before us. I don't see that we bear any responsibility for they did, but I don't see a problem in a society making a statement acknowledging wrongs from the past and vowing not to do so again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Hey, if a simple "I'm sorry" gets us away from these inspid affirmative action programs, quotas, minority hiring criteria, etc., sign me up to "apologize" to any aggrieved group. Nobody says you have to mean it. HA! What it DOES do is establish precedent and a foundation for further sympathy mongering and victim card waving. Because of exactly what you state. "If you meant it you'd give us <this> and establish <that> and provide us <this>...etc. etc." It seems (and it warms me to no end to say this) that the masses are just working through life doing the best they can. However, the vocal NA in the spotlight are the ones who expect us to, through remorse and thinly veiled if not overt accusations of racism or just plain entitlement, provide every need for them like some communistic idealism. It's funny really.... look back at GrahamKracker. He called us racists and he called those NAs who spoke in favor of the nickname "hang around the fort Indians." Yet... those who speak so much against the nickname want those very same "fort dwelling white men" to provide for their people. Who's really hanging around the fort? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the sioux, the illini, the seminoles, the braves, the indians, or most native based mascots, but the redskins should go. as a generally conservative person i don't think conservative politics means a person is more likely to accept the name redskins. i imagine any of the nine members would be against the name or for the name based on their opinion of whether or not it's a derogatory term. I would be willing to bet that Roberts, Alito and Thomas would be less in favor of hearing the case than say a Sonja SotoMayor or a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We can bet a beer on it if you would like. I will even let David K in on the action as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMeNow Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 I would be willing to bet that Roberts, Alito and Thomas would be less in favor of hearing the case than say a Sonja Soto Major or a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We can bet a beer on it if you would like. I will even let David K in on the action as well. Now who's bringing POLITICS into this arguement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Now who's bringing POLITICS into this arguement? It's isn't politics it's the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 As I suspected, the Supremes denied cert on this case earlier, so it's back to the drawing board for the "plaintiffs". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 As I suspected, the Supremes denied cert on this case earlier, so it's back to the drawing board for the "plaintiffs". Great news! Say what you want about the "Redskins" nickname but this is not surprising. It's a bit hard to cram PC down on private enterprise. There are no twit administrators without backbones and no NCAA/college system dominated by resurrected 60's hippies. If one wants to effect change in that regard get people to not go to the games or buy the clothing, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Great news! Say what you want about the "Redskins" nickname but this is not surprising. It's a bit hard to cram PC down on private enterprise. There are no twit administrators without backbones and no NCAA/college system dominated by resurrected 60's hippies. If one wants to effect change in that regard get people to not go to the games or buy the clothing, etc. So just because it's a private business/team, there should be no legal limit as to what they can call themselves? I hate to be so offensive, but to prove my point what if Washington's team was called the Fighting Ni**ers? Would you consider a lawsuit against that name to be "PC crammed down our throats"? I doubt it. So there IS a line. And it's not a firm line...it has to be tested and proven out in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I hate to be so offensive, but to prove my point what if Washington's team was called the Fighting Ni**ers? Would you consider a lawsuit against that name to be "PC crammed down our throats"? I doubt it. So there IS a line. And it's not a firm line...it has to be tested and proven out in court. So, by your twisted "logic" Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, Ice-Cube, etc. should have been sued for using Niggers With Attitude (NWA) too ... The fact your little feelings may get hurt does not automatically entitle them to protection under the US Consitution, no matter what the current Kumbaya crowd may tell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 So, by your twisted "logic" Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, Ice-Cube, etc. should have been sued for using Niggers With Attitude (NWA) too ... The fact your little feelings may get hurt does not automatically entitle them to protection under the US Consitution, no matter what the current Kumbaya crowd may tell you. Scott...in case you haven't notice MplsBison is big on getting everything "tested and proven out in court". And don't get him going on the correlation between nickname/logo issues and slavery...it's mind numbing!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 So, by your twisted "logic" Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, Ice-Cube, etc. should have been sued for using Niggers With Attitude (NWA) too ... The fact your little feelings may get hurt does not automatically entitle them to protection under the US Consitution, no matter what the current Kumbaya crowd may tell you. I don't think they should have been sued. Nor do I think the Washington Redskins should have been sued. I was only arguing that they should be able to be sued. Not that they should be immune from being sued, which is the commonly held belief on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I don't think they should have been sued. Nor do I think the Washington Redskins should have been sued. I was only arguing that they should be able to be sued. Not that they should be immune from being sued, which is the commonly held belief on this board. Really? What's the cause of action? Thin skin? Hurt feelings? A lack of self-esteem? One more frivolous lawsuit because someone wet their panties once too often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Really? What's the cause of action? Thin skin? Hurt feelings? A lack of self-esteem? One more frivolous lawsuit because someone wet their panties once too often. Freedom of speech vs. libel, I guess? I don't really care, I'm not a lawyer. Something to the effect that you can't just say whatever you want about someone in public, legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.