Where are you at on this whole team name change thing?

by **Countertrey** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:55 am

riggofan wrote:
StorminMormon86 wrote:People need to stop with the Obama crap...he was asked a question by a reporter and simply said if he was the owner he'd "think about changing the name"...not that he would, or that Snyder should, just that if he were the OWNER he would consider it. He didn't "weigh in" at all, he simply answered a question.

Thank you. Your best post EVER.

He said far more than that... of course, it would not have helped make your point... but... let's just pretend he didn't.

by **StorminMormon86** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:13 am

My ten month old gets into everything and destroys my house. Thanks Obama.

by **grampi** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:23 am

79% of native Americans polled said they DON'T find the team name "Redskins" offensive, so even the majority of the people claimed to be offended by the team name are not offended by it...to me this sounds like a classic example of yet another attempt by a few fringe lefties trying to use PC to force a vast majority to make concessions to please a few whiners...

by **riggofan** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:23 am

Countertrey wrote:
riggofan wrote:
StorminMormon86 wrote:People need to stop with the Obama crap...he was asked a question by a reporter and simply said if he was the owner he'd "think about changing the name"...not that he would, or that Snyder should, just that if he were the OWNER he would consider it. He didn't "weigh in" at all, he simply answered a question.

Thank you. Your best post EVER.
He said far more than that... of course, it would not have helped make your point... but... let's just pretend he didn't.

That's nonsense. StorminMormom is exactly right that Obama didn't just jump in on the issue. He was ASKED by a reporter.

I just re-watched the entire 70 second comment that Obama made, and I would LOVE to know what you think qualifies as "far more" in his comments. Please enlighten us.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/na ... n_redskins

by **grampi** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:25 am

riggofan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
riggofan wrote:
StorminMormon86 wrote:People need to stop with the Obama crap...he was asked a question by a reporter and simply said if he was the owner he'd "think about changing the name"...not that he would, or that Snyder should, just that if he were the OWNER he would consider it. He didn't "weigh in" at all, he simply answered a question.

Thank you. Your best post EVER.
He said far more than that... of course, it would not have helped make your point... but... let's just pretend he didn't.

That's nonsense. StorminMormom is exactly right that Obama didn't just jump in on the issue. He was ASKED by a reporter.

I just re-watched the entire 70 second comment that Obama made, and I would LOVE to know what you think qualifies as "far more" in his comments. Please enlighten us.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/na ... n_redskins

A proper response to the question would've been "no comment"...

by **emoses14** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:30 am

grampi wrote:
riggofan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
riggofan wrote:
StorminMormon86 wrote:People need to stop with the Obama crap...he was asked a question by a reporter and simply said if he was the owner he'd "think about changing the name"...not that he would, or that Snyder should, just that if he were the OWNER he would consider it. He didn't "weigh in" at all, he simply answered a question.

Thank you. Your best post EVER.
He said far more than that... of course, it would not have helped make your point... but... let's just pretend he didn't.

That's nonsense. StorminMormom is exactly right that Obama didn't just jump in on the issue. He was ASKED by a reporter.

I just re-watched the entire 70 second comment that Obama made, and I would LOVE to know what you think qualifies as "far more" in his comments. Please enlighten us.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/na ... n_redskins

A proper response to the question would've been "no comment"...

A proper response from any grown man to any question is whatever that grown man chooses to say. No matter whether we disagree with it or not. Didn't we (collective, not just you and I) already cover this ground with Griffin's press conferences over the summer?

by **emoses14** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:33 am

grampi wrote:79% of native Americans polled said they DON'T find the team name "Redskins" offensive, so even the majority of the people claimed to be offended by the team name are not offended by it...to me this sounds like a classic example of yet another attempt by a few fringe lefties trying to use PC to force a vast majority to make concessions to please a few whiners...

Agree that it is highly annoying when fringe morons throw temper tantrums and whine and try to force their way or world view onto the majority without regard for the consequences simply because they can.

Its like dealing with children, I swear.

by **riggofan** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:46 am

emoses14 wrote:
grampi wrote:
riggofan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
riggofan wrote:
StorminMormon86 wrote:People need to stop with the Obama crap...he was asked a question by a reporter and simply said if he was the owner he'd "think about changing the name"...not that he would, or that Snyder should, just that if he were the OWNER he would consider it. He didn't "weigh in" at all, he simply answered a question.

Thank you. Your best post EVER.
He said far more than that... of course, it would not have helped make your point... but... let's just pretend he didn't.

That's nonsense. StorminMormom is exactly right that Obama didn't just jump in on the issue. He was ASKED by a reporter.

I just re-watched the entire 70 second comment that Obama made, and I would LOVE to know what you think qualifies as "far more" in his comments. Please enlighten us.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/na ... n_redskins

A proper response to the question would've been "no comment"...

A proper response from any grown man to any question is whatever that grown man chooses to say. No matter whether we disagree with it or not. Didn't we (collective, not just you and I) already cover this ground with Griffin's press conferences over the summer?

For real. Grampi is just mad because the black President is getting all uppity. Tea Party don't like that.

by **Irn-Bru** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:04 am

riggofan wrote:For real. Grampi is just mad because the black President is getting all uppity. Tea Party don't like that.

Folks, this topic is politically charged, but let's not make this a thread on politics. Feel free to start one in the Lounge if you want to continue the Obama talk.

Thanks.

by **riggofan** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:27 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
riggofan wrote:For real. Grampi is just mad because the black President is getting all uppity. Tea Party don't like that.

Folks, this topic is politically charged, but let's not make this a thread on politics. Feel free to start one in the Lounge if you want to continue the Obama talk.

Thanks.

And of course. Nobody ever posts this warning until somebody defends the president.

I would LOVE to not interject politics in here. So how about the rest of these guys stop making the nasty comments about the commander in chief from the get-go? You can do that all day on foxnews.com.

I certainly didn't see you jump in here to moderate two dozen posts ago when posters start throwing around the term "libtard" and complaining about the war on christmas.

by **emoses14** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:51 am

I think there's a degree of (i) "see if they can stay on the right side of politics vs. sports/redskins", (ii) "see if they can stay the course and not get overly politicized about the politics involved in a given topic (hell, this is a thread about changing the name, which is inherently a quasi political issue anyway)", (iii) "the moderators have jobs, too" and (iv) "give them a chance to at least have a back and forth before an admonishment" at play.

In other words, I'd give the mods, particularly Irn-Bru, but all of them, really, a bit more benefit of the doubt in this case. Before you can warn, you have to actually have pattern of devolution into political back and forth established.

My 2 cents

by **langleyparkjoe** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:17 am

riggofan wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
riggofan wrote:For real. Grampi is just mad because the black President is getting all uppity. Tea Party don't like that.

Folks, this topic is politically charged, but let's not make this a thread on politics. Feel free to start one in the Lounge if you want to continue the Obama talk.

Thanks.

And of course. Nobody ever posts this warning until somebody defends the president.

Naw not Bru.. he keeps the threads very level my friend. He's always the one guy that will direct us to another section for us to continue our ramblings and he doesn't show any prejudice.

Now me on the other hand.. I'll messup a good post anyday. :lol:

by **riggofan** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:35 am

Fair enough. I will resist defending the Prez.

by **riggofan** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:38 am

emoses14 wrote:In other words, I'd give the mods, particularly Irn-Bru, but all of them, really, a bit more benefit of the doubt in this case. Before you can warn, you have to actually have pattern of devolution into political back and forth established.

I get that. And its unfair of me to complain about the mod.

I still think though that the warnings seem to come out a little late. Its always the retaliation that draws the flag.

by **Irn-Bru** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:12 pm

riggofan wrote:
emoses14 wrote:In other words, I'd give the mods, particularly Irn-Bru, but all of them, really, a bit more benefit of the doubt in this case. Before you can warn, you have to actually have pattern of devolution into political back and forth established.

I get that. And its unfair of me to complain about the mod.

I still think though that the warnings seem to come out a little late. Its always the retaliation that draws the flag.

As SkinsJock might say, no worries, mate.

I did quote your post (and removed previous quotes to keep the post from being too long), but the reminder was general and meant for everyone in the thread who was veering off into politics. Yes, equally for those dragging out criticisms of Obama as well as those defending him. One or two comments are OK, but once we get back-and-forths with extended elements . . . nothing wrong with doing that, as long as it's continued in the Lounge and not Hogwash.