Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Hey, Washington: CHANGE YOUR DAMN NAME!

181 comments:

  1. My political science teacher likes to bring up "tradition" during policy discussions. I suspect that she's just playing devil's advocate, but sometimes it's difficult to tell. Either way, it's easily shot down; along the same lines as what you said, it can be argued that bans against interracial or interfaith marriage was "tradition", or that keeping women in subservient domestic roles was "tradition". There is no inherent value to "tradition" in itself. It depends entirely on the merits of the views or behavior, not the fact that those views or behavior have been commonplace for whatever period of time.

    Regarding this case specifically, I think the example of the Devil Rays is interesting. I don't yet know for certain that it was due to religious backlash (and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised), but I found this quote from their principal owner, given at the time the name changed: "We were tied to the past, and the past wasn't necessarily something we wanted to be known for. Nobody's running from it or hiding from it, and we're proud of certain aspects of it, but this is something the organization was able to really put their arms around. I hope and expect the fans who come out will see it as a new beginning," There's absolutely no reason that Washington can't make a similar comment, especially since they previously changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins" and can simply change it back.

    This is also one of those issues that I categorize under what I call the "Objective Principle Principle". I'm sure someone else has a better name for the same concept, but it essentially means that once a principle can be justified, then the specific circumstances generally can't overcome that.
    For example, it should be easy to establish that people should do their own work whenever they are capable of doing it. So, if someone wants me to do their work for them (and I've actually had conversations similar to what follows), then it's impossible to come up with some rationale to trump the principle at hand.
    Example A: "It's not that much work."
    Response: "Then you should be able to squeeze it in to your schedule."
    Example B: "It's a lot of work."
    Response: "Then you can't expect someone else to take that burden for you."
    Now, if one wants to help out, that's fine. But there's no way to obligate someone else to do that work. There's no compelling argument to that end.

    Similarly, the "come on" and "it's tradition" lines fall into this construct. There are two principles here; first, the name is undeniably offensive. It's not possible to make a reasoned argument to a Native American that they have no reason to object to the name. Second, teams have changed their name for any number of reasons (including, it would seem, placating offended people), so there's no major inconvenience that they can claim.

    So, the conversation goes like this:
    Example A: "It's not a big deal."
    Response: "If nobody really cares, then it's not a big deal to change the name."
    Example B: "The name is important!"
    Response: "Then that significance carries over to Native Americans as well, which means that you should change the name."

    Of course, I haven't seen anyone try to defend the current name with any meaningful argument, and I always find it curious when people stubbornly cling to racially offensive terminology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There's absolutely no reason that Washington can't make a similar comment, especially since they previously changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins" and can simply change it back."

      They have NEVER been known as the Washington Braves. Where do you get your supposed facts from? Or is your entire premise based on lies? Since you use that as a reason to change it "back" when it was never a name of theirs.

      Delete
    2. I never said "Washington Braves". The team changed their name before they moved to Washington. Was that necessary to specify, for some reason? Why is it supposed to make a difference, exactly?

      Delete
    3. "I never said "Washington Braves"."

      Yes you did. You said Washington changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins" in the quote I brought (of yours). So, if you continue along this line of defense, you are an confirmed liar.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    4. "Yes you did."

      Where did I say "Washington Braves"? That means both of those nouns together, not separate. Your absurd hair-splitting doesn't equate to what I actually said.

      "You said Washington changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins" in the quote I brought (of yours)."

      I didn't use that wording, though. It's the same team, which is now referred to as "Washington" since that's where they now play. That doesn't mean the team had to be in Washington when they adopted "Redskins", any more than saying that the Browns moving to Baltimore means that there was a "Baltimore Browns". Or did you think there was such a team, perhaps?

      Would you like to keep playing your childish game, or can you explain what difference any of this is supposed to make?

      Delete
    5. "Where did I say "Washington Braves"? That means both of those nouns together, not separate."

      I take it you are now admitting defeat? Did you really just ask that and say that?

      "I didn't use that wording, though. It's the same team, which is now referred to as "Washington" since that's where they now play."


      And that changes the exact same circumstances for the Cleveland Browns in WHAT WAY? Yet you defend the Browns name, even though it can be considered racially derogatory.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    6. "I take it you are now admitting defeat? Did you really just ask that and say that?"

      Why are you dodging the question?

      "And that changes the exact same circumstances for the Cleveland Browns in WHAT WAY? Yet you defend the Browns name, even though it can be considered racially derogatory."

      What "exact same circumstances" are you talking about? Are you carrying over from your comment elsewhere on the thread, even though this is a completely separate argument? There's no sensible way of considering "Cleveland Browns" derogatory, anyway, so the circumstances are clearly not similar.

      Delete
    7. "Why are you dodging the question?"

      You mean dodging the question about when you called Washington the "Redskins" or the "Braves"? I think I've already provided your quote where you called Washington both the Braves and the Redskins.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    8. "I think I've already provided your quote where you called Washington both the Braves and the Redskins."

      You claim to think a lot of things that aren't actually true, which is probably why you won't answer questions which force you to demonstrate that.

      Again, I didn't say "Washington Braves". All you're doing is whining that I didn't phrase an already straightforward comment to your liking, and without showing how it makes any difference whatsoever. That's just too bad for you.

      Delete
    9. You're the one who falsely claimed Washington changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins". Don't blame me for highlighting your failure to grasp reality. If you actually knew what you were talking about, having discussions with you would be easier, but you don't, so I get a lot of whines and deflections. I'm glad you expose your true intelligence while discussing subjects you know nothing about (sports). You should have participated in more sports while you were a child, perhaps your mind wouldn't be so tweaked if you had.
      I accept your apologies in advance for your denial of calling Washington the "Braves" and the "Redskins". If you continue to deny it, then this is yet another example of you lying about what you actually did say and what your tweaked mind thinks you said. Because, any moron (except you) can figure out I didn't claim you called them the "Washington Braves". I said you called Washington the "Braves". They certainly can't change their name from one thing to the other without being called the other first. However, your limited knowledge of factual history (Washington was never the "Braves") limits your ability to actually discuss what is being discussed.

      So, if you're done discussing honestly and want to just whine about lies you make, then I'll leave you to discuss with yourself. Kind of like how you play with yourself (is that another something you learned in your childhood?).

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    10. "You're the one who falsely claimed Washington changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins"."

      The team did. You have to recognize the difference, since you yourself pointed out that the Browns moved to Baltimore. You previously distinguished between the team and the city, but you're suddenly unable to understand that concept.

      "If you actually knew what you were talking about, having discussions with you would be easier, but you don't, so I get a lot of whines and deflections."

      Have you explained how this particular whine session of yours could possibly be relevant to anything?

      "I accept your apologies in advance for your denial of calling Washington the "Braves" and the "Redskins". If you continue to deny it, then this is yet another example of you lying about what you actually did say and what your tweaked mind thinks you said."

      That wouldn't require "apologies" to you even if it was true. As it is, I never said "Washington Braves", while you dishonestly claimed that I did.

      "Because, any moron (except you) can figure out I didn't claim you called them the "Washington Braves"."

      Not according to your own words:
      Me:"I never said "Washington Braves"."
      You:"Yes you did."

      "I said you called Washington the "Braves". They certainly can't change their name from one thing to the other without being called the other first."

      The team can be called a previous name in a previous city, just like how the "Ravens" were previously called the "Browns".

      "So, if you're done discussing honestly and want to just whine about lies you make, then I'll leave you to discuss with yourself."

      You're the one who wanted to pretend that your nitpicking nonsense constituted an issue, and I have every right to smack your stupidity down. You didn't address anything else in my post, so you don't get to pretend that you've made any arguments here.

      "Kind of like how you play with yourself (is that another something you learned in your childhood?)."

      You: "When you act like an adult, I will. Otherwise, STFU"
      Keep proving your hypocrisy for as long as you like.

      Delete
    11. "The team did."

      Not while in Washington. Which is what you claimed.

      "You have to recognize the difference, since you yourself pointed out that the Browns moved to Baltimore."

      The difference being: Baltimore didn't take the name with them.

      "The team can be called a previous name in a previous city, just like how the "Ravens" were previously called the "Browns"."

      So, now you're claiming that 2 different teams have the same historical background of 1 city? What historical connection does the current Cleveland Browns have in Cleveland as compared to the Ravens if you still consider the Ravens as being the original Browns?

      "Keep proving your hypocrisy for as long as you like."

      That IS acting like an adult. Look how you're acting ... do you consider yourself an adult?

      Delete
    12. "Not while in Washington. Which is what you claimed."

      Where did I say "while in Washington"?

      "The difference being: Baltimore didn't take the name with them."

      But that was the plan. Didn't you know that? They were going to be the "Baltimore Browns", but then they changed the name when Cleveland wanted to keep the name for future use. Besides, that doesn't change the fact that you recognized references to teams as opposed to cities, but now you've magically lost that capacity.

      "What historical connection does the current Cleveland Browns have in Cleveland as compared to the Ravens if you still consider the Ravens as being the original Browns?"

      What in the hell does "as compared to the Ravens" have to do with anything? If you're talking about "Baltimore", then that team history goes back to Cleveland. Because, obviously, that's the team that you're referring to. There's no comparison involved in that concept. Even better, I essentially have to say "Baltimore" if I'm referring to that specific team, because just "Cleveland" would refer to the expansion team. I couldn't very well say "Cleveland changed their name to the 'Ravens'", because the current Cleveland team is the Browns. That would seem to be the very concept that you previously misused when talking about the origin of the name "Browns".

      "That IS acting like an adult."

      Your childish insults constitutes "acting like an adult", but my defense against your insane accusations is something else, somehow? Whatever helps you look in the mirror without crying in shame, I suppose.

      Delete
    13. "Where did I say "while in Washington"?"

      You claimed it. I didn't say you "said" it. But, anyone with the slightest intelligence, would have realized the team was NOT in Washington when the name was changed. As YOU claimed happened.

      "There's no comparison involved in that concept."

      That's right. So, Cleveland chose to use a racially derogatory word (to some people) as it's team name, yet you don't feel there is anything wrong with it. By saying because it was named after a coach then racially derogatory words are OK. But, you miss the part that the Redskins were originally named after a coach, while you claim it's a racially derogatory word (to some people).

      " I couldn't very well say "Cleveland changed their name to the 'Ravens'", because the current Cleveland team is the Browns."

      But, and you've admitted, they aren't the same "Browns" who were named after a coach. That team left for Baltimore and chose not to use a racially derogatory word (to some) as their team name. Glad to see you are defending the use of a racially derogatory word (to some) as a team name, while decrying the use of a racially derogatory word (to some) being used as a team name.

      Because it would seem quite hypocritical to take that kind of stance, but, IMHO, your hypocrisy is hilarious to continue pointing out. I'm guessing you're not going to be part of that group who wants Redskins removed from all schools and team names from this point on? If you were part of that group then you'd have a lot of Native American schools being forced to change the team name they draw pride from. Bummer for you. You seem to be hypocritical no matter what bandwagon you join.

      Delete
    14. "You claimed it. I didn't say you "said" it."

      Then you assumed a meaning that I didn't imply. That's your problem.

      "That's right."

      So, why did you ask the question?

      "So, Cleveland chose to use a racially derogatory word (to some people) as it's team name, yet you don't feel there is anything wrong with it."

      Because the "some people" you specify have no basis for their viewpoint.

      "By saying because it was named after a coach then racially derogatory words are OK."

      Since it was named after a coach, that means that it's not racial in origin. Therefore, it can't be racially derogatory.

      "But, you miss the part that the Redskins were originally named after a coach, while you claim it's a racially derogatory word (to some people)."

      The Redskins weren't named after a coach, though. Sorry. Even if it was, it would still have had a racial element to it, as opposed to a reference to a surname.

      "But, and you've admitted, they aren't the same "Browns" who were named after a coach."

      It's the same name, so the origin of the name never changed. I never "admitted" anything to the contrary.

      "That team left for Baltimore and chose not to use a racially derogatory word (to some) as their team name."

      They only chose not to use the name because Cleveland wanted to keep it for future use. They had planned on being the "Baltimore Browns".

      "Glad to see you are defending the use of a racially derogatory word (to some) as a team name, while decrying the use of a racially derogatory word (to some) being used as a team name."

      Sorry, but "to some" isn't automatically equal in all cases. Just because you make a hilariously weak case for "Browns" being racist, that doesn't mean that "Redskins" isn't racist.

      "I'm guessing you're not going to be part of that group who wants Redskins removed from all schools and team names from this point on?"

      From Native American schools? No, Native Americans can use whatever term they like. That doesn't make it appropriate for other people, as your own link pointed out.

      Delete
    15. "Because the "some people" you specify have no basis for their viewpoint."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
      They have "no basis for their viewpoint"? Wow, what a racist you are!

      "The Redskins weren't named after a coach, though. Sorry. Even if it was, it would still have had a racial element to it, as opposed to a reference to a surname."

      I'm afraid I have the same evidence of that that you have to support the Browns name. If you can't accept my evidence, then your evidence can't be accepted. Which means you're making an illogical argument and it isn't founded on fact any more than "tradition" (that you previously cried about). So, you (and Eddie) are crying about nothing and being hypocritical for your reasoning when NOT complaining about ALL the other uses of Redskins and other racially derogatory (to some) words. Unless you're going to claim that "browns" doesn't have a "racial element" in it. Which, of course, would make you a racist. So, which is it?

      "They only chose not to use the name because Cleveland wanted to keep it for future use."

      That's what YOU say. Do you have any FACTS to prove that?

      "From Native American schools? No, Native Americans can use whatever term they like."

      That's why there are no High Schools nicknamed the "niggers"? No, I'm afraid they are NOT allowed to use "racially derogatory" words as team names according to the demands of those who seek "Redskins" removed from Washington's nickname. If you truly feel that way then you are a hypocrite of your own standards. Nothing I haven't discovered, previously, though.

      ROFLMAO

      Delete
    16. "They have "no basis for their viewpoint"?"

      Where does your link say that the surname "Brown" is racist?

      "I'm afraid I have the same evidence of that that you have to support the Browns name."

      Two completely different situations don't constitute "the same evidence". Marshall himself said that he chose the name so that he wouldn't have to change the logo, and the coach's heritage itself is uncertain.

      "So, you (and Eddie) are crying about nothing and being hypocritical for your reasoning when NOT complaining about ALL the other uses of Redskins and other racially derogatory (to some) words."

      If you could show that "Browns" was racist, then I would oppose it. Since you can't, it's completely irrelevant.

      "Unless you're going to claim that "browns" doesn't have a "racial element" in it. Which, of course, would make you a racist."

      The surname "Brown" doesn't have a racial element in it, so "Browns" doesn't have a racial element in it. As always, you fail to grasp the meaning of the word "racist".

      "That's what YOU say. Do you have any FACTS to prove that?"

      Are you saying that you don't know sports? What happened to your previous boasting about all of your knowledge?

      "That's why there are no High Schools nicknamed the "niggers"? No, I'm afraid they are NOT allowed to use "racially derogatory" words as team names according to the demands of those who seek "Redskins" removed from Washington's nickname."

      You don't get to speak for others, sorry. I can oppose Washington's use of the name without insisting that Native American high schools change anything.

      Delete
    17. "You don't get to speak for others, sorry. I can oppose Washington's use of the name without insisting that Native American high schools change anything."

      But, it means I can call you a hypocrite and be correct about it.

      "The surname "Brown" doesn't have a racial element in it, so "Browns" doesn't have a racial element in it."

      How is "Browns" a surname when the person the team is named after is named "Brown"? Is there more than one coach Brown that they are named after? So, "Browns" has a racial element because most of it's team are brown (racially insensitive towards African/Americans) but your racist insensitivity doesn't allow you to acknowledge that. You keep crying about one but fully defend the other. So, I should change that to hypocritical racist insensitivity.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    18. "But, it means I can call you a hypocrite and be correct about it."

      No, it doesn't. Examples of Native Americans using the term are not racist.

      "How is "Browns" a surname when the person the team is named after is named "Brown"?"

      I didn't say that "Browns" was a surname. It doesn't have a racial element to it, because it comes from the surname "Brown".

      "So, "Browns" has a racial element because most of it's team are brown (racially insensitive towards African/Americans) but your racist insensitivity doesn't allow you to acknowledge that."

      So the name, which was established almost seventy years ago, is supposedly racist because of the racial makeup of the team today? As if the name wouldn't be racist if the team happened to be entirely white, or something? That's hilarious.

      "You keep crying about one but fully defend the other."

      That sounds very much like you. And what, exactly, do you think you can accomplish by talking about the Browns? If you were to make a compelling argument, then I would object to that name as well as that of the Redskins. How would that help your case for the racist name, exactly? I'm guessing that you never thought that through, just like everything else that you post.

      Delete
    19. "So the name, which was established almost seventy years ago, is supposedly racist because of the racial makeup of the team today?"

      Ah, so you're relying on "tradition" to keep the word that has racial undertones (to some)? I thought you started out arguing against using "tradition" as a reason to keep a racially insensitive name. Maybe "Browns" wasn't insensitive 70 years ago, but there are plenty of people who would be insulted if your referred to them as "Browns" today. Making your acceptance of a traditional team name hypocritical in comparison to denouncing the use of a traditional name.
      And, yes, if you refer to a team that has a majority of African/Americans on the team as "Browns" it would seem to be a bit racist.

      Delete
    20. "Ah, so you're relying on "tradition" to keep the word that has racial undertones (to some)?"

      If the origin of the name wasn't racial, then it's not racial now. That doesn't rely on any concept of "tradition".

      "And, yes, if you refer to a team that has a majority of African/Americans on the team as "Browns" it would seem to be a bit racist."

      If you're ignorant, perhaps. Once you know that the team was named after a coach, then it obviously can't be considered racist.

      Anything else? You seem to be reaching the end of your pull string here.

      Delete
    21. "If the origin of the name wasn't racial, then it's not racial now. That doesn't rely on any concept of "tradition"."

      The "origin" of Redskins wasn't racist then, either. So, that shoots your entire argument down in flames.

      Since you seem so eager to have the last word, I'll let you. I've logically countered all your arguments and all you have left is to complain about strings, so I'll let you finish this article. Giving a reply, now, would just be argumentative since you have nothing to base your opinion on.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    22. "The "origin" of Redskins wasn't racist then, either."

      The Redskins wasn't named after a coach. Even besides that, the nature of one name doesn't hinge on the other, no matter how many times you dishonestly claim otherwise. "Redskins" is racial in origin no matter which story you cling to, while the same is not true of the "Browns".

      "I've logically countered all your arguments and all you have left is to complain about strings, so I'll let you finish this article."

      Where did I "complain about strings"? You don't even know what "complain" means, as much as you do it.

      Thanks for proving that you have no concept of logic, as if there was any question. All you've done is to pretend that another team's name somehow trumps dictionary definitions and your own admission that the name is derogatory. It doesn't.

      By the way, if you post another "ROTFLMAO", that won't be letting me have the last word. Can you overcome your childish instincts, or will you prove yourself to be a liar once again? I'm guessing the latter, based on your atrocious pattern of behavior.

      Delete
    23. That should be "The Redskins weren't named after a coach".

      Delete
    24. "That should be "The Redskins weren't named after a coach"."

      Ah, but they were. As my link proves. Too bad for you, because neither are the current Cleveland Browns. As you know, they are an expansion team. The team named after (supposedly) Mr. Brown moved out of Cleveland long ago.

      Delete
    25. "Ah, but they were."

      Your own link said "some accounts", which doesn't translate to "my link proves".
      And, again: "John F. Banzhaf III, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, cites a newspaper article from 1933 in which Marshall is quoted as saying the name was selected only to save money by not having to change the logo of the Braves, and not to honor Dietz or the Indian players.”

      "Too bad for you, because neither are the current Cleveland Browns."

      So, "neither" the current Browns nor the Redskins were named after a coach? Interesting. I'm curious as to how you became so confused in the short distance from one sentence to the next.

      "The team named after (supposedly) Mr. Brown moved out of Cleveland long ago."

      It's the same name, so the origin of the name is the same for both teams. Prove otherwise, if you think that you can.

      You also conveniently forgot that you said you were going to give me the last word, since you posted again. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

      Delete
    26. "Your own link said "some accounts", which doesn't translate to "my link proves"."

      And, .... ???

      "So, "neither" the current Browns nor the Redskins were named after a coach?
      Interesting."

      Interesting to you, perhaps.

      ROTFLMAO]

      Delete
    27. "And, .... ???"

      No "and" is needed. Your link doesn't prove what you claim it does.

      Delete
    28. Ah, but it does show what I say is correct. However, it does not support your claim. And you ignoring bringing an explanation as to why you use misinformation is very telling about your conversational abilities.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    29. "Ah, but it does show what I say is correct."

      No, "some accounts" don't show that what you say is "correct". It only shows that some people believed that.

      Remember, your own quote said: "Dietz's true heritage has been questioned by some scholars, citing a birth certificate and census records that his parents were white." If "some accounts" supposedly proves that the Redskins were named after Dietz, then "some scholars" would prove that he wasn't even Native American to begin with. Is that your view?

      Delete
    30. " It only shows that some people believed that."

      Which is still better than anything you brought. You brought a definitive number of Native Americans who support the name change without being able to prove it, since the source only gave you the tribes that are included in that number and NOT the number of people who feel that way. Try to follow along. Are you going to continue to skirt the issue or are you going to man-up and bring the facts that you insist are present?

      Delete
    31. "You brought a definitive number of Native Americans who support the name change without being able to prove it, since the source only gave you the tribes that are included in that number and NOT the number of people who feel that way."

      Not according to you. But you probably don't even remember asserting what Native Americans think, do you?

      Delete
    32. I didn't think you'd man-up. You're not the type to.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    33. In other words, you now do remember what you said, and you don't want to own up to it. Run away, now.

      Delete
    34. I know what I said. I'm asking you to own up to what YOU said. In your typical fashion, you run away like a little girl when asked to prove what YOU say. I think I am asking too much of you when I ask you to "man-up". It takes a man to do that.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    35. "I know what I said. I'm asking you to own up to what YOU said."

      If you know what you said, then you don't need any further explanation. It's your standard at work, as I stated already on this thread. If you don't like it, then whine at yourself about it.

      Delete
    36. Please don't tell me that is the best you can do. But, you gotta admit, it is truly funny watching you make claims then refuse to back them up. That sure makes your arguments pretty worthless. That must be one of the seven things that liberals already knew ... that you can't back up your own claims. Nothing unexpected there, Eddie does the same thing.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    37. "But, you gotta admit, it is truly funny watching you make claims then refuse to back them up."

      It's your claim, William, because it's your standard. If you want to amend your other comment and abandon the claim that Native Americans approve of the name, then you will no longer be saying that 1.2 Native Americans oppose it.

      It's all on you. Let me know if you want to backtrack.

      Delete
    38. This is YOU: "Great link, William. If Dodson can testify on behalf of 700 people, now you have 1.2 million against you."
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/09/hey-washington-change-your-damn-name.html?showComment=1412602344684#c6630548170202746227

      I support the name Redskins, you say 1.2 million Native Americans are against me. That means YOU CLAIM 1.2 million Native Americans are against the name Redskins. Your claim, your responsibility to prove it.
      Now, are you going to continue wearing that skirt? Or are you going to man-up and back up YOUR claim? I suspect the prior. You're much better at skirting than being a man.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    39. "That means YOU CLAIM 1.2 million Native Americans are against the name Redskins."

      No, it's your claim, since you used Dodson to speak for "Native Americans". That's why it's your own standard that you're whining about. Are you backtracking from what you said, or not? If it's the latter, then you can't complain to me about the standards that you use.

      In case you haven't figured it out, you actually have to make an argument at some point, as opposed to the petulant bellyaching that you're reduced to here. Otherwise, my position is entirely justified.

      Delete
    40. Since you don't know how to read, I'll point out I made an argument in my second post. Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit, though, huh?

      Delete
    41. "Since you don't know how to read, I'll point out I made an argument in my second post."

      I'm referring to your accusations, obviously, since I specified your bellyaching. Lack of comprehension on your part.

      Delete
    42. I haven't made any accusations. You have made claims that you cannot substantiate, but I haven't made any accusations.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    43. "You have made claims that you cannot substantiate, but I haven't made any accusations."

      The phrase "you have made claims that you cannot substantiate" is an accusation. And it's not the first time you've made it, in case you're inclined to say that it is: "you brought a definitive number of Native Americans who support the name change without being able to prove it..."

      Try again?

      Delete
    44. "Try again?"

      No. I've made you look pretty silly as it is. You really don't want me to continue, do you?

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    45. I don't really care what you do, myself. Since you've abandoned your arguments, it's not clear what you would possibly "continue" except more word games and other desperate attempts to save face.

      Delete
    46. " Since you've abandoned your arguments, it's not clear what you would possibly "continue" except more word games and other desperate attempts to save face."


      About those "word games": "Where did I say "Washington Braves"? That means both of those nouns together, not separate."
      And, your arguments are reduced to: "I'm referring to your accusations, obviously, since I specified your bellyaching."

      Thanks for admitting you give up.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    47. Both of those comments were rebuttals to your phony claims. You're not going to try to say that I can't defend myself, so you can't very well complain about that.

      Me: "I never said "Washington Braves"."
      You: "Yes you did."
      Hence, I'm clearly justified in saying "That means both of those nouns together, not separate." Not only did you fail to show where I said "Washington Braves", but you never even showed how I supposedly "claimed" that the name change took place in Washington.

      Thanks for bringing that up.

      And I especially like the phrasing of "your arguments are reduced to" when I corrected the only claim in your two-sentence post. Hilarious.

      Delete
    48. "Not only did you fail to show where I said "Washington Braves", but you never even showed how I supposedly "claimed" that the name change took place in Washington."

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/09/hey-washington-change-your-damn-name.html?showComment=1413295184612#c1751516114012752382

      Apparently I DID show where you claimed the name change took place in Washington. You said Washington "can simply change it back" (meaning to the Braves), when in fact they were NEVER known as the Washington Braves. Yet you said Washington could change their name back to the Braves. How can a city change their name "back" to something they were never known as in that city? Of course, you know when you made that claim? Right, during your very first post.

      As for you saying "Washington Braves", that would be YOU playing word games. Which is all you got.

      You are truly hilarious .... ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    49. "You said Washington "can simply change it back" (meaning to the Braves), when in fact they were NEVER known as the Washington Braves."

      The team was known as the Braves. I didn't say that the original change happened in Washington. Since the team is in Washington now, then "there's absolutely no reason that Washington can't make a similar comment" is perfectly valid. Would you expect me to say that Baltimore could do something regarding the team that's now in Washington?

      "How can a city change their name "back" to something they were never known as in that city?"

      The "city" wouldn't be changing their name. The team would be, obviously. And a team can change their name back to something that was used in a previous city. You have no logical response to the contrary.

      You lose.

      "As for you saying "Washington Braves", that would be YOU playing word games. Which is all you got."

      Factually, you're the one who started this section of the thread regarding this nonsense. So, it's quite clearly "all you got", while I'm simply exposing your petty tactics for what they are.

      Delete
    50. "Factually, you're the one who started this section of the thread regarding this nonsense."

      Did you read the link that showed where you made that false claim? I'm pretty sure it was the FIRST comment on this thread. So, it isn't me starting anything. You made a false claim, I merely showed you your mistake. Don't worry, though, most liberals bring false information then defend their actions, so it isn't anything I don't already expect from you.

      " I didn't say that the original change happened in Washington."

      Well, with that mentality, you should have no problem supporting the changing of the racially derogatory name of "Browns" back to the "Panthers", since that was the original name.

      Delete
    51. "Did you read the link that showed where you made that false claim?"

      I never made a false claim. You made a baseless assumption.

      "I'm pretty sure it was the FIRST comment on this thread."

      So your point is that when you started your insane nitpicking over what I said, that you were responding to what I said? There's no real alternative to that, as far as I can see, so you're obviously not proving anything. It was only when you were getting pummeled over your own posts that you decided to manufacture an issue with my original comment.

      "Well, with that mentality, you should have no problem supporting the changing of the racially derogatory name of "Browns" back to the "Panthers", since that was the original name."

      I would, if "Browns" was racially derogatory. Besides that:
      You: "Too bad for you, because neither are the current Cleveland Browns. As you know, they are an expansion team. The team named after (supposedly) Mr. Brown moved out of Cleveland long ago."

      So, their original name was not the "Panthers", by your logic, because this "Browns" is supposedly a different name than the original "Browns" which are now the "Ravens". Are you lying, or did you just accidentally admit that the name is the same for the original "Browns" and the expansion team?

      Delete
    52. "I never made a false claim."

      Sure you did: " There's absolutely no reason that Washington can't make a similar comment, especially since they previously changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins" and can simply change it back.". You said Washington changed the name from Braves to Redskins, when it was Boston that had done that, not Washington. That would be a false claim. I'm glad to see you haven't lost your knack for defending lies that you bring.

      "I would, if "Browns" was racially derogatory."

      Then, why would you want Redskins changed, since it is not racially derogatory?

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    53. "You said Washington changed the name from Braves to Redskins, when it was Boston that had done that, not Washington."

      But I couldn't have said that Boston could do anything, since the team is no longer there. Since the team is now in Washington, that's the proper reference. Again, your assumption is the only problem here.

      "Then, why would you want Redskins changed, since it is not racially derogatory?"

      It's offensive according to dictionaries. Meanwhile, you're siding with the racist owner who changed the name.

      No comment on your dual stories regarding the Browns' name? What a surprise.

      Delete
    54. "It's offensive according to dictionaries."

      Ah, "offensive" is good enough? Well, "browns" is "offensive" to some African/Americans. If you were teaching a class full of African/Americans would you say "Alright, browns, let's get class started."? No, you wouldn't (I assume YOU wouldn't) because that would be "offensive". And, if "offensive" is your standard, well,, I've just given an example of "Browns" being offensive too. Yet ... surprise ... you defend THAT "offensive" word as a team name.

      "But I couldn't have said that Boston could do anything, since the team is no longer there."

      Which team? Braves or Redskins? But, the fact remains, you said Washington "previously changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins" ". When that did not happen while in Washington. If you were to have been honest you would have simply said it happened in Boston. Or even admit that Washington did not change their name from Braves to Redskins. Have you done either? I guess you don't plan on being honest(?).

      Delete
    55. "Ah, "offensive" is good enough? Well, "browns" is "offensive" to some African/Americans."

      What's your source? And "Browns" doesn't have a racial basis to it, while "Redskins" does.

      "If you were teaching a class full of African/Americans would you say "Alright, browns, let's get class started."?"

      No, probably not even if I was a racist. Has anyone ever used that term in that manner? I've worked with some very racist people, and I've never heard anything like that.

      "Which team? Braves or Redskins?"

      Those are the same team.

      "When that did not happen while in Washington."

      I never said that it did.

      "If you were to have been honest you would have simply said it happened in Boston."

      I was talking about possible current actions, so it wouldn't be possible to say "Boston" in that context.

      Funny how you keep forgetting to address that. Why is that?

      Delete
    56. Funny how you refuse to be honest. Why is that?

      Without honesty, I take it you are done with this conversation. Should you find it in you to actually BE honest more discussion can take place. Otherwise ...

      ROTFLMAO @ U

      Delete
    57. "No, probably not even if I was a racist."

      So you admit it is offensive.

      "I never said that it did."

      Yes, you did.

      "I was talking about possible current actions, so it wouldn't be possible to say "Boston" in that context."

      No, you weren't talking about that in any context.

      Delete
    58. "Funny how you refuse to be honest. Why is that?"

      You'd have to actually address my point in order to show dishonesty. Otherwise, my explanation stands unscathed.

      "So you admit it is offensive."

      No, because I wouldn't say it even if I was a racist. I've never heard it used as a slur. Have you? If it was offensive, then it would make sense for a racist to use the term.

      "Yes, you did."

      No, liar, I didn't. "Washington" refers to the team, not the city itself. Remember that you made the effort to point out that the Cleveland Browns of 1945 were now in Baltimore under a different name, because you were focusing on the team.

      "No, you weren't talking about that in any context."

      According to the words you quoted, I was; "there's absolutely no reason that Washington can't make a similar comment" clearly uses the present tense. As in "there is absolutely no reason that Washington can not make a similar comment". Not "could have" or "there was" or anything else. That means I was talking about possible current action. So, it wouldn't make any sense to say "Boston" instead of "Washington", and therefore your demands are irrational.

      Next?

      Delete
    59. "No, liar, I didn't."

      Yes you did. You said Washington changed their name from Braves to Redskins: "There's absolutely no reason that Washington can't make a similar comment, especially since THEY previously changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins" and can simply change it back." (highlights mine). You said it, stop denying it. Boston changed the name from Braves to Redskins, not Washington ... as YOU said.
      But, I like how you cropped your comment to exclude that portion of your statement. More misinformation from a liberal .... go figure.


      "No, because I wouldn't say it even if I was a racist."

      Yes, you did. Because you said you would NOT say that. Obviously, you think it would be offensive for some reason. Otherwise you would have no problem saying it.

      Wow, you are having a real problem following along with what YOU say, aren't you?!?

      "Meanwhile, you're siding with the racist owner who changed the name."

      And you have evidence of that racism ... how? Bring that evidence or STFU.

      I expect some lame excuse for your lies and misinformation ... so I am just ...

      ROTFLMAO @ U

      Delete
    60. "Boston changed the name from Braves to Redskins, not Washington ... as YOU said."

      The team changed its name. The team is currently in Washington. Ergo, "Washington" can make a similar comment, since I'm talking about potential action that can happen now.

      Show me the difference in these two scenarios based on my quote;
      A) The name was changed in Boston
      B) The name was changed in Washington
      Quote: "There's absolutely no reason that Washington can't make a similar comment, especially since they previously changed their name from "Braves" to "Redskins" and can simply change it back."

      Can the team call for a change in image and revert to their old name if the name was previously changed in Boston? Yes. Is the same true if the previous change was done while in Washington? Again, yes. So, your idiotic assumption of meaning doesn't even affect my point. Quit your psychotic bitching.

      "But, I like how you cropped your comment to exclude that portion of your statement."

      My statement was already posted more than once, and there's nothing about the supposed "crop" that misrepresented anything. I pointed out that I was talking about possible current action, which is proven by my use of the present tense. The rest of the quote isn't relevant to that point, and it doesn't contradict it. Moreover, I didn’t present it as if it was the full statement. Note that the first letter is uncapitalized, there’s no period at the end, and it’s directly followed by analysis of the wording. There’s simply no way for an educated person to take that as if it was supposed to be the full sentence, and no way for anyone to argue that it needed to be. Just another pathetic failure on your part.

      "Yes, you did. Because you said you would NOT say that. Obviously, you think it would be offensive for some reason. Otherwise you would have no problem saying it."

      If I was a racist, then I would say things that are offensive. Because racism is offensive, obviously. You aren't thinking about what you're typing at all.

      Has anyone ever used "browns" as a racial slur? Does anyone use the term to refer to African-Americans as a group? I've never heard of that. Why would I use a term that has no established meaning, whether I thought it was racist or not? You've been avoiding this point, and it's pretty obvious why.

      Delete
    61. "And you have evidence of that racism ... how?"

      His racism already been demonstrated on this thread, but I'll humor your addled brain; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall

      Notably: "Marshall has gained infamy for his intractable opposition to having African-Americans on his roster. According to professor Charles Ross, "For 24 years Marshall was identified as the leading racist in the NFL".[4] Though the league had previously had a sprinkling of black players, blacks were excluded from all NFL teams in 1933. While the rest of the league began signing individual blacks in 1946 and actually drafting blacks in 1949, Marshall held out until 1962 before signing a black player. Along with his own personal views, Marshall refused to sign African-American players because of a desire to appeal to Southern markets, which lacked an NFL team until Dallas entered the league in 1960.[5] His intractability was routinely mocked in Washington Post columns by legendary writer Shirley Povich, who sarcastically used terms from the civil rights movement and related court cases to describe games: for instance, he once wrote that Jim Brown "integrated" the end zone, making the score "separate but unequal"...Finally, in 1962, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy issued an ultimatum — unless Marshall signed a black player, the government would revoke the Redskins' 30-year lease on the year-old D.C. Stadium (now Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium), which had been paid for by government money and was owned by the Washington city government (which, then as now, is formally an arm of the federal government)."

      Marshall: "We'll start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing whites."

      Another source for you: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24626968/george-marshalls-granddaughter-redskins-need-to-change-name;
      "As legendary coach Sid Gillman said in 1961: “Marshall refuses to use Negro players. He's dead wrong from both a moral and practical standpoint. From a moral standpoint, Marshall's policy is disgraceful. He's living in the Dark Ages. From a practical standpoint, he's ruined his football team. It's impossible to compete in any sport without using Negro athletes.”"

      And: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/14/redskins-name-cant-properly-be-assessed-without-considering-man-who-coined-it/
      "Tomasky points out that, when Marshall died in 1969, the bulk of his estate funded a foundation that was prohibited from contributing to “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” Before that, Marshall had resisted the integration of pro football, becoming the last owner to hire an African-American player."

      And: http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/columnists/alan-peppard/20140701-the-segregated-redskins-were-dixies-team.-then-came-the-cowboys..ece
      "If anyone remembers Marshall today, they remember one word: racist...From 1937 until 1960, the Redskins were the closest thing the old Confederacy had to an NFL team. Marshall wasn’t going to alienate Dixie fans by signing any African-American players. NEVER. Instead, he changed the lyrics of “Hail to the Redskins” from “Fight for old D.C.,” to “Fight for old Dixie.” With his own chain of Southern TV stations, he had the Stars and Bars fans to himself."

      So you're desperate to criticize me for not coming up with some convoluted way of saying that the current team can change the team's name back while accommodating the utterly irrelevant fact that it was originally changed in Boston. Because, apparently, I'm to be held accountable for your moronic assumptions if I don't spoon-feed you unnecessary information. On the other side of the equation, you're siding with a rabid racist.

      I win.

      Delete
    62. "Has anyone ever used "browns" as a racial slur? "

      Yes. As in my example. Does anyone ever use Redskins as a racial slur? No. It is a team name ... nothing more. No one uses the word otherwise to describe anyone.

      "His racism already been demonstrated on this thread, but I'll humor your addled brain; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall"

      You only bring evidence for ONE of the FOUR owners? Why is that?

      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    63. "Yes. As in my example."

      I know that you used it in your example. How about something from someone other than yourself, to show that you aren't the first person ever to use it that way? Or did you just coin your own racial slur? So it would be offensive if your personal racist use of the name was ever uttered elsewhere. That's not very compelling.

      "Does anyone ever use Redskins as a racial slur?"

      Marshall did, apparently.

      "No one uses the word otherwise to describe anyone."

      It's strange that dictionaries were able to determine that it was offensive, then, if nobody ever uses the term to describe anyone. You even admitted that it was derogatory, if you recall, so that would involve it being used against people.

      "You only bring evidence for ONE of the FOUR owners? Why is that?"

      Who else changed the name to "Redskins" besides Marshall?

      Delete
    64. "Marshall did, apparently."

      I'm pretty sure the question was "does" not "did". You got anything else? Or is that all you got?

      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    65. "I'm pretty sure the question was "does" not "did"."

      I'm very sure that the question isn't relevant. It's very commonly known that the term is racist, and it's been controversial for over forty years. Do you have anything to show that there are similar protests over the "Browns"?

      Who were the other owners who changed the name to "Redskins"? You said there were four of them in total, so let's see some names. Speaking of "is that all you got", you can't even back up your previous claims when challenged. Pathetic.

      Delete
    66. " Do you have anything to show that there are similar protests over the "Browns"?"

      You, yourself, said you wouldn't use the word in the setting I gave as an example. Probably because of the racist aspect of the word, since you compared the use to racists. Why do "protests" need to take place for a word to be considered offensive?

      Looks like you've run out of excuses for supporting some offensive words while denouncing others. Do you have anything else?

      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    67. "Probably because of the racist aspect of the word, since you compared the use to racists."

      I "compared" no such thing, liar. And you could make almost any word seem inappropriate if it's substituted for "students" in that example. I wouldn't call students "giants" either, but that doesn't make that word racially offensive. It comes across as random, so why would anyone do it? It's an absurd scenario that doesn't prove anything.

      On top of that, you're changing the context of the term to suit your purposes. Apparently, nobody except for you thinks the team name is an issue, while calling African-American students "browns" suggests something else due to the circumstances at hand. You wouldn't call a classroom of female students "angels", either, since that could be taken as a term of endearment, yet there isn't any call for the baseball team to change their name on those grounds.

      "Why do "protests" need to take place for a word to be considered offensive?"

      Without any evidence of controversy, it's clear that people aren't viewing the name the way that you insist that they should. This would be especially obvious considering that the expansion team used the same name. That would have been a very clear opportunity for all of the people outraged over this theoretical racism to at least suggest that a new name be chosen.

      Still no other owners who changed the name to "Redskins"? I'm just going to keep asking, because I'm genuinely curious as to what the hell you thought you were talking about. Do you even know? Were you not in control of your fingers when you made that claim, or what?

      Delete
    68. "I "compared" no such thing, liar."

      Sure you did, right here: "No, probably not even if I was a racist."

      "Still no other owners who changed the name to "Redskins"?"

      A group of 4 started the team. You claim one is racist, what about the other 3? Do you have any evidence on them? And, considering there were several Native Americans on the original Redskins team, why would it be inappropriate to name the nickname after them or a coach with Native American ancestry? It seems to me that it would be a form of flattery. Some Native Americans even get pride out of the name Redskins.
      So you are falling in line with the genocidal government that nearly wiped the entire race off the planet (and still forces them to live on "reservations") and are letting that government tell you what is or isn't a proud word within the race that the government (that you support) nearly wiped out? Good for you, liberal. Do as you are told and believe as you are told to believe. I see you side with a genocidal government instead of the actual people who were murdered, on this issue.
      BTW, that government you support was (is) a very racist government too. Even hiring KKK leaders to be political party leaders. So many racists within that government, and yet you let THEM tell you what is right/wrong. Wow, glad to see you liberals are independent thinkers ... NOT.

      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    69. "Sure you did, right here: "No, probably not even if I was a racist."

      What are you claiming is a comparison there?

      "A group of 4 started the team."

      And all four of them changed the name? What's your source?

      "And, considering there were several Native Americans on the original Redskins team, why would it be inappropriate to name the nickname after them or a coach with Native American ancestry?"

      The term has a racist history, as already demonstrated. Besides, it appears that the coach wasn't Native American, and Marshall himself denied that the name change was based on Dietz or the players.

      "So you are falling in line with the genocidal government that nearly wiped the entire race off the planet (and still forces them to live on "reservations") and are letting that government tell you what is or isn't a proud word within the race that the government (that you support) nearly wiped out?"

      It's still not clear how my view supposedly relies on the government.

      "Even hiring KKK leaders to be political party leaders."

      Well, if you can side with Marshall and claim to not be a racist, then other people can side with Byrd without being racists.

      So much for your hopes of ever bringing him up again. What a shame.

      Delete
    70. "What are you claiming is a comparison there?"

      What comparison are you denying?

      "And all four of them changed the name?"

      No. You claimed they were racist. Where is YOUR source?

      "The term has a racist history, as already demonstrated. "

      By who? You? That doesn't count, IMHO. Bring your evidence or STFU.

      "It's still not clear how my view supposedly relies on the government."

      If you want to continue being a denier, so be it. Don't blame me for your racist attitude.

      "Well, if you can side with Marshall and claim to not be a racist, then other people can side with Byrd without being racists."

      As you wish


      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    71. "What comparison are you denying?"

      There is no comparison to deny, as far as you've demonstrated.

      "No. You claimed they were racist."

      No? If only Marshall changed the name, then why the hell are you bringing up the other three? Why do you think they're relevant? You should probably go back and read the previous exchange.

      "By who? You? That doesn't count, IMHO."

      Read the thread. You admitted yourself that the term was "changed" to something disparaging.

      "If you want to continue being a denier, so be it."

      You would actually have to provide something in order for me to deny it. As it stands, you haven't explained how anything I've said relies on government influence.

      "As you wish"

      So all of your past (and future) invocations of Byrd are now discredited, since you can't break yourself away from what you've said here. Good job.

      Delete
    72. "Read the thread. You admitted yourself that the term was "changed" to something disparaging."

      No I haven't. Your out of context interpretations are irrelevant.

      "No?"

      You claimed they were racist. Bring that evidence. It isn't MY problem you don't know the facts as you spout your hatred.

      "As it stands, you haven't explained how anything I've said relies on government influence."

      I've fully explained what I've said. You not being able to understand simple english is not my problem, mr denier.

      "So all of your past (and future) invocations of Byrd are now discredited, since you can't break yourself away from what you've said here."

      You wish.

      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    73. "No I haven't."

      You: "It was the genocidal invading Europeans (and American senators) whose actions changed the word into something disparaging.

      "You claimed they were racist."

      Did I claim that the founders of the team were all racist, or did I claim that the owner who changed the name was a racist? Go back and check.

      "I've fully explained what I've said."

      Where was that?

      "You wish."

      Then you're separating yourself from Marshall, and you now want the team to change their name. Thanks for coming around on that.

      You can't have it both ways, of course. You can't try to label me just because I generally vote for the party that Byrd was in, while you stubbornly support the actions of a vile racist. I'll be glad to smack you back and forth on this for as long as you want to play your game.

      Delete
    74. "You:"

      Thanks for proving what I just said. Denying history, now?

      "Go back and check."

      Your lack of knowledge on this issue is not subject to review.

      "Where was that?"

      Go back and check. LOL

      "Thanks for coming around on that."

      Marshall is dead. You have NO clue, do you? That would explain my continual ROTFLMAO comments. Way to go, liberal, you keep exposing yourself as to who you are.

      "You can't have it both ways, of course."

      But, YOU sure get to .... support Byrd, denounce Marshall. As long as you benefit (in some way) what do you care about morals.

      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    75. "Thanks for proving what I just said."

      Me: "You admitted yourself that the term was "changed" to something disparaging."
      You: "No I haven't."
      You, previously: "It was the genocidal invading Europeans (and American senators) whose actions changed the word into something disparaging.
      Obviously, your "no I haven't" wasn't proven by pointing out that you said exactly what I said that you did.

      "Your lack of knowledge on this issue is not subject to review."

      You made the assertion that I was talking about four people. I take it that you're admitting that you were wrong by not backing up what you said.

      "Go back and check. LOL"

      Where at? It's not in this section of the thread.

      "Marshall is dead. You have NO clue, do you?"

      So is Byrd. It's rather funny that you were unaware of that. And because someone is dead, therefore they were never a racist, or what?

      "But, YOU sure get to .... support Byrd, denounce Marshall."

      So you're admitting that you're trying to have it both ways. Good work. And you never demonstrated how I "support Byrd", so your admission doesn't gain you anything.

      Besides, Byrd is dead, so how can I support him? I'll be laughing for a while over that one, thank you.

      Delete
    76. The facts are out. It seems there are 5 (FIVE) Native Americans who consider the term Redskins "offensive". I'm pretty sure the 700, that my link showed don't think it is, should be given more priority than FIVE. And FIVE should not be given the acceptance over the rest of the US population who don't also. Looks like that 1.2 million (that you claimed) isn't factual. Are you ever going to use facts to base your opinions on? Or just to continue to do as you're told (being the obedient liberal that you are)?

      "WASHINGTON (AP) - Five Native Americans are asking a Virginia judge to dismiss a lawsuit the Washington Redskins filed after the group successfully challenged the team's name, arguing it is offensive.

      Lawyers for both sides were expected in federal court in Alexandria on Friday, where a judge was scheduled to hear arguments on whether the lawsuit should be thrown out.

      The five won a victory earlier this year when a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office board ruled that six trademark registrations on the team's name should be canceled because they were ''disparaging to Native Americans'' when registered. The board acted after the group of Native Americans petitioned it to cancel the trademark registrations."

      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    77. "And FIVE should not be given the acceptance over the rest of the US population who don't also. Looks like that 1.2 million (that you claimed) isn't factual."

      Because every lawsuit has to involve everyone who opposes the name? Hilarious. You're talking about five people who petitioned to cancel the trademark. So, when the team files a lawsuit over that, it's naturally going to involve those same five people, so they're the ones who are going to ask to have it dismissed. How you imagine that helps you is a mystery. You believe that a million people are going to respond to a lawsuit, somehow, that doesn't involve them? Did you even read what you posted, or did you just start drooling when you read "Five Native Americans"?

      Also, you forgot to address anything from the previous post. Were you wrong when you claimed that I said the four founders of the team were racist, or were you lying? Your lack of accountability suggests the latter, but feel free to admit your error.

      Delete
    78. "You're talking about five people who petitioned to cancel the trademark."

      That means there are five people complaining about it being racist, too. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

      "Also, you forgot to address anything from the previous post."

      I didn't forget anything. Didn't you read my earlier post? "Without honesty, I take it you are done with this conversation. Should you find it in you to actually BE honest more discussion can take place. Otherwise ... "

      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    79. "That means there are five people complaining about it being racist, too."

      In that lawsuit. Your previous link brought up another lawsuit, so obviously you're eager to overemphasize the one that involves only five people. Your desperation is amusing.

      "I didn't forget anything."

      Then you were lying when you claimed that I said that all four founders of the team were racist. I'm not at all surprised.

      Delete
    80. "Your previous link brought up another lawsuit,"

      How many people are involved in that lawsuit? Oh, wait, never mind ... you don't think bringing facts is important in an honest discussion. ( "Without honesty, I take it you are done with this conversation. Should you find it in you to actually BE honest more discussion can take place. Otherwise ... ")

      ROTFLMAO @U

      Delete
    81. "How many people are involved in that lawsuit?"

      It doesn't matter. You claimed 700 Native Americans supporters based on one person's comments, so whoever the litigants represent get counted as people who oppose the name. That's your standard. But, if you want to backpedal from that and claim that there are only "FIVE" people who oppose the name, then you only have one who supports it.

      Either way, I win.

      Delete
    82. "It doesn't matter."

      It absolutely DOES matter. Bring the facts or STFU.

      " But, if you want to backpedal from that and claim that there are only "FIVE" people who oppose the name, then you only have one who supports it."

      No, I've got 700 who support it. Reread that link. You've got 5 ... and NO proof of anything more. Unless you want to step up to the plate and bring some facts. But ... as I said earlier about your abilities with facts, we know where that will get us.

      The only thing you're going to win at is getting the last word in.

      ROTFLMAO @ U

      Delete
    83. "It absolutely DOES matter."

      You saying so isn't compelling. I already explained how you're wrong.

      "No, I've got 700 who support it."

      No, the article said those 700 were represented by Dodson. That works exactly the same as people getting represented in a lawsuit. You don't have any "proof" of 700 outside of the one person interviewed.

      Your own link: "Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million."

      So, even if you took only three Native Americans (which would be an extremely low percentage) from each of those 250 groups, that's 750. Even if I were to grant you everyone who was "represented" by Dodson and take a laughably low number from each of the groups represented in the lawsuit, you still lose. You could hardly ask for more charitable rules.

      But, since you want to assert that every single person in Dodson's tribe sides with him, it's perfectly fair to assert that 1.2 million Native Americans oppose the name. Plus, it would seem, the combined population of the other four tribes specifically mentioned.

      Do you have anything besides childish foot-stomping? Not that it isn't amusing, but it's not an argument in your favor.

      Delete
  2. Interesting topic. How about the Washington Redskins change their name to the Washington Bitches? Since Bitch seems to be acceptable to use on TV, books, magazines and songs. Or they can be the "Wuss's", since they would be weak to change their name according to the whines of a couple hundred people. Or they could be called the "Pussies", since they are getting screwed over the simple demand that they change their name. Imagine the team mascot for that one! LOL. Maybe even start calling them the "Deadskins", there is nothing offensive about dead skin. Everyone has it.

    OR ... everyone who doesn't like their name can simply stop buying products of theirs and stop watching their football games. Better yet, cancel your cable as a form of protest until the name is changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, William, one reason I can think of that those names wouldn't fly - aside from the fact that they don't really connote strength or aggressiveness the way MOST football mascots do - is that just as many people would be offended at them, if not more. So (1) your proposed solution fails to address the issue at hand (which is par for the course) and (2) the people offended would likely be a bit WHITER and RICHER than the people being offended now. IOW: People who's opinions we don't have to be reminded matter. (Although I'd submit that they'd have far LESS of a reason to find it offensive, not that this would matter to the powers that be.)

      As for the whole boycott thing? Sure. That is of course one thing that people can do. Although BUSINESSES usually try to act in a way that AVOIDS those. You know, the whole "maximize value for the shareholder" thing And I'd have a hard time believing that after a season or two, if that, ANYONE would care if the name were changed to, say, "Braves" (IOW: At least as minimally respectful as the other "Indian" name derivatives, which don't call to mind actual hate crimes and genocide.) Whereas THIS controversy isn't going away as long as there are any Native Americans (and decent people who aren't complete morons and realize that they have a POINT) left.

      Teams change names all the time - as I pointed out. And I can think of worse reasons to change a team name than the fact that it is racially offensive and connotes violence being perpetrated on said race. So... other than their being a racist douchebag, can you give me another reason why changing it should be a big deal to ANYONE?

      Why has Conservatism become nothing more than a rationalization for acting like an asshole?

      Just change the fuckin' name. What the fuck is the problem here?

      Delete
    2. " (IOW: At least as minimally respectful as the other "Indian" name derivatives, which don't call to mind actual hate crimes and genocide.) Whereas THIS controversy isn't going away as long as there are any Native Americans (and decent people who aren't complete morons and realize that they have a POINT)"

      So, to you, "Braves" is "minimally respectful"? What if there are those who don't feel as you? Why should your desires be met based on your feelings about who is being treated as who? I feel the name invokes fearlessness in the team. Just as Detroit chose "Lions" to strike fear in their opponent. Why should another team, whose name does that, be forced to find another nickname that will strike fear in the opponent (as you seem to want with: "really connote strength or aggressiveness the way MOST football mascots do")? They have one... it's the "Redskins". And a name that did, in fact, strike fear in their opponents, in the past, why should they cower to your whines based on you feelings, now?

      What you call "hateful" and "genocide" was being done TOO them, not BY them. By that logic, you should be tremendously against a nickname like the "Senators", since it was them who decided it was OK to murder those Native Americans! The Native Americans showed great resolve with their resistance to foreign invaders. You sit there living in an AMERICA, that was stolen from the Native American, then you whine and want to force a name-change to a team whose nickname fits your feelings? That makes no sense at all. You are supporting the forced change of a nick-name that invokes fearsomeness because you feel that name is derogatory? Who taught you that? Your government during their genicidal attacks on the "Native Americans"? Well, they taught you well. You should be supporting "The Redskins" because it provides a source of pride from the generations of Native Americans that actually DID fight against and suffer through that genocide that the American Government did to them.

      You wanted a reason ... you got one. What about the Native Americans who are proud of the power and resistance their culture has? Do their feelings mean nothing because you feel otherwise? Or do they just have to be outnumbered for you to find support based on your feelings?

      Delete
    3. " is that just as many people would be offended at them, if not more."

      Why would anyone be offended by a name for a female dog? And, if they were, then why don't they whine about the various media usages of the word? Why would it present offense to name a football team that? It would invoke either "strength or aggressiveness". Which is what you feel a team should strive for when choosing a nick-name. Would that be another case of your feelings being hurt?

      "Teams change names all the time - as I pointed out."

      Yeah, so you should be, next, demanding that the Browns change their name to something else, right?? Maybe "Beiges"? or "Tans" or some other shade that doesn't use "brown" in it? Since that is obviously racist towards brown people. Nobody is considered beige, so that name should work, right?

      Delete
    4. "So, to you, "Braves" is "minimally respectful"? What if there are those who don't feel as you?"

      What would the basis of that opinion be? "Braves" is not a slur, as opposed to "Redskins".

      "I feel the name invokes fearlessness in the team. Just as Detroit chose "Lions" to strike fear in their opponent."

      Is "Lions" a racial slur? Are offensive terms the only way to invoke "fearlessness"?

      "They have one... it's the "Redskins". And a name that did, in fact, strike fear in their opponents, in the past, why should they cower to your whines based on you feelings, now?"

      Because it's an offensive term. It's not clear why you can't recognize that as a legitimate complaint.

      "What you call "hateful" and "genocide" was being done TOO them, not BY them."

      Eddie's phrasing was "call to mind". He didn't suggest that Native Americans did any such thing. And how, exactly, does talking about their status as victims fit in with your "fearsome" argument? That doesn't really work with the claim of "strength and aggressiveness" in the name.

      "That makes no sense at all. You are supporting the forced change of a nick-name that invokes fearsomeness because you feel that name is derogatory?"

      Where did Eddie say "forced"? Besides, dictionaries label the term as offensive, in case you were unaware. It's not just a matter of personal opinion, as you pretend.

      "What about the Native Americans who are proud of the power and resistance their culture has? Do their feelings mean nothing because you feel otherwise?"

      Where is this supposed groundswell of support for the name from Native Americans?

      "Why would anyone be offended by a name for a female dog?"

      If you were referring to a "female dog", then why the hell would you say "Since Bitch seems to be acceptable to use on TV, books, magazines and songs"? You wouldn't expect that meaning to be unacceptable, so why would it be notable that it "seems to be acceptable"?

      "And, if they were, then why don't they whine about the various media usages of the word?"

      Your argument would seem to be that if there's one instance of improper language in the public sphere, then all improper language has to be accepted. Otherwise, what is your point? So, people say "bitch". Does that hurt your feelings, or what?

      "Yeah, so you should be, next, demanding that the Browns change their name to something else, right??"

      Is that name supposedly based on race? If it is, then it should get the same reaction. If it isn't, then it's irrelevant. It's not as if "Redskins" is actually innocuous, and the reaction is based on a misunderstanding. It's clearly offensive, while "Browns" has never been interpreted as being racial in origin.

      Delete
    5. For your education;

      "When owner Arthur McBride bought an AAFC team to Cleveland, he held a newspaper contest to name the team and offered a $1,000 war bond to the winner. Browns became a popular choice in tribute to Paul Brown the team's head coach."
      http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/clev/browns.html

      "Cleveland Browns-The Cleveland All-America Football Conference franchise conducted a fan contest in 1945 to name the team. The most popular submission was Browns in recognition of the team’s first coach and general manager Paul Brown, who was already a popular figure in Ohio sports. Brown at first vetoed the choice and the team selected from the contest entries the name “Panthers.” However, after an area businessman informed the team that he owned the rights to the name Cleveland Panthers, from an earlier failed football team, Brown rescinded his objection and agreed to the use of his name."
      http://foreshock.wordpress.com/origin-of-nfl-teams-1922-present/origin-of-nfl-team-nicknames/

      Also: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2011/12/were-the-cleveland-browns-named-after-boxer-joe-louis.html

      No, your example is irrelevant. The Browns don't deserve any similar protest. But, if they did, you'd obviously fight for the racist name anyway, apparently for the sole reason that a liberal objected to it.

      Delete
    6. William, your post lives at the corner of obtuse and idiotic.

      "So, to you, "Braves" is "minimally respectful"? What if there are those who don't feel as you?"

      There are plenty of people who don't feel as I do. And not all of them are even RW idiots. The POINT, which you obviously missed, if that there's the merely insensitive (Indians) and there'e the downright derogatory and offensive (Redskins.) (And these very people are prioritizing.) And this is not based on *my* feelings - absent the protests of Native Americans, I wouldn't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I WILL however defer to the marginalized group itself when the Rich White Conservatives decide their feelings *DON'T* matter.

      As for the ability to *Strike fear*, while "Braves" refers to Indian WARRIORS (still racially insensitive, as they're reduced to a caricature) "REDSKINS" refers to the scalping and skinning of Native Americas done by hunters in order to collect bounties on their kills. Again - that's not *MY OPINION* that's the argument being presented by the protesters. And whether this was the team's intention or not is irrelevant. KNOWING that this is the image being triggered in the minds of the very people they are supposedly "honoring" (HA!) you have two choices: Continue to be a hateful douchebag, or (2) CHANGE THE FUCKIN' NAME!

      "Why would anyone be offended by a name for a female dog?"

      OK, bitch. In that case, this shall be my name for you from now on. Oh wait, no I can't do that. After all, I'd hate to think I would be so insulting to dogs as to suggest they were as useless as you.

      "Yeah, so you should be, next, demanding..."

      I'm not *demanding* anything here. The marginalized group who's genocide is being celebrated by this name is. *I* am merely pointing out that the LEAST racist argument (team and sport tradition) is an idiotic one, as almost a third of teams have changed names at one point or another, including the one in question.

      Also... I'm not sure why pointing out that you can do some mental gymnastics to show me that *any* name could be offensive is relevant since NO mental gymnastics are required in this case. As for you example of the BROWNS? Pul-lease.

      As a derogatory name, "Indians" would be to "Browns" as "Redskins" would be to "Niggers." (Would YOU support the New York Niggers?)

      And as a hate crime, relative to "Redskins," the "Browns" would become (per the example I gave) the "Lynch Mob."

      I'm not sure if your failure to see this is due to you being merely obtuse or just plain stupid, but there you go.

      Delete
    7. I don't think you know what you're talking about. The original use of the word "redskin" didn't even refer to the color of their skin, it was referencing the body paint they used. It was the genocidal invading Europeans (and American senators) whose actions changed the word into something disparaging. So, I am right, and you are supporting genocidal America in your demands that Washington change their name from "Redskins". So, tell me, why don't you protest the name: Washington Senators? After all, it was THEM who caused the genocide in America towards the Indians and made a word that glorified American Indians into something disparaging.

      Hey, brabantio, the Cleveland Browns are an expansion team. NOT the team you brought the history for. Get your facts straight before you post, next time. The entire team and front office personal moved to Baltimore. Then Cleveland was awarded an expansion team and chose to use the Browns again. It still seems derogatory to use "Browns" no matter what kind of silly spin you put on the word like you have done. So, I guess you're just selectively insulted by the use of derogatory names? You're a liberal, so I expect that.
      Here's a team name for you, why they name themselves the Washington Liberals. Oh wait, that's another disparaging word that concocts images of evil people doing evil things. Guess they'll just have to stick with supporting American Indian pride and culture.

      Delete
    8. brabantio, for your education: "In June 1945, a committee selected "Panthers" as the new team's name. McBride, however, changed it to the Browns two months later, the result of another naming contest that suggested Browns, not after Paul Brown himself, but as a shortened version of Brown Bombers, a reference to the nickname of boxer Joe Louis. Some sources say McBride was asked for thousands of dollars in compensation from a businessman who owned the rights to the name Cleveland Panthers, an earlier failed football team.".
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns

      You conveniently left out the part where the team name comes from a derogatory word for describing a famous boxing individual ... who was African-American. So the "Browns" comes from a derogatory word towards African-Americans, yet you support (and defend) that name and hate one that describes American Indians. Go figure

      Delete
    9. "So, I am right...?"

      William, no matter what comes next, 99.9% of the answer is going to be no. And this is definitely one of those times.

      Also, again, *I'M* not the one making the argument. I'm merely siding with those who are, and accepting that, as I am not one of them, I have no business telling them they shouldn't be offended.

      My *sole point* here, which you haven't said anything about, is that the appeal to tradition rates somewhere between "not applicable" and idiotic. Since you haven't addressed that directly, I assume you agree. If you don't? Well, you're wrong, and I cited 44 examples of why.

      So before this farce continues, please give me - in POSITIVE terms - why YOU believe they should keep the name. I don't want to here about 1000 other teams that could change their names. 44 teams HAVE, some multiple times, and for a variety of reason. So I don't care about that - again it ranks somewhere between "not applicable" and idiotic, though I will grant you much closer to "not applicable."

      Nor do I want to hear about the people it DOESN'T bother. Those people won't be affected by a name changed, to the Braves, the Senators or the God Damn Tea Party. They don't' care now, and only the ones clinging to a non-exsistant tradition WOULD be bothered by the change.

      So, in plain, simple English, so that we're all sure to understand, please tell me why *YOU* believe that they *SHOULD* keep the name. I really want to hear this before we continue. So rather than just debating us for the sake of it, tell us why you think it's a GOOD NAME, and should be KEPT.

      Please.

      Delete
    10. "McBride, however, changed it to the Browns two months later, the result of another naming contest that suggested Browns, not after Paul Brown himself, but as a shortened version of Brown Bombers, a reference to the nickname of boxer Joe Louis."

      My link already disposed of your story. There was nothing in the votes for "Browns" that suggested anything regarding Joe Louis. Sorry.

      "So the "Browns" comes from a derogatory word towards African-Americans, yet you support (and defend) that name and hate one that describes American Indians. Go figure."

      You're wrong on both counts. I already said that if it was derogatory that it should be treated the same as Redskins. I also debunked your story before you even told it. Read the links that I provide before telling me that I "left out" anything.

      "Hey, brabantio, the Cleveland Browns are an expansion team. NOT the team you brought the history for."

      So your claim is that the renamed team is based on Joe Louis, while the original one wasn't? Why would there be a different inspiration when they used the exact same name?

      "Get your facts straight before you post, next time. The entire team and front office personal moved to Baltimore."

      I know that they moved. It's not relevant to the name of "Browns", which is what you brought up.

      "It still seems derogatory to use "Browns" no matter what kind of silly spin you put on the word like you have done."

      That's because you can't accept facts that prove you wrong. Read the articles. History is not "spin".

      "In June 1945, a committee selected "Panthers" as the new team's name."

      Another thing about that quote; if the Browns are an expansion team, and I was supposedly wrong to mention the actual origin of the name, then you can't bring any stories about the original team. You'd have to address the origins of the expansion team name, however you believe them to be different from those of the original Browns.

      Delete
    11. Since you couldn't see the link that specifically mentioned Joe Louis, let me give you the bottom line:
      "The Browns, meanwhile, support the "Named after Paul Brown" position. From the Browns' media guide:'Not a single entry in the contest listed Louis or his nickname as a reason for choosing ‘Browns.''
      When you add in the fact that while yes, Jou [sic] Louis was quite famous at the time, he was not particularly associated with Cleveland at all (Louis was born in Alabama and became a famous boxer out of Detroit), then I think there's enough evidence to support the assertion (that both the Browns and the NFL itself both agree with now) that the team was, in fact, named after Paul Brown."

      The Browns and the NFL both say that you're wrong, and there's no evidence for you to make an argument to the contrary. Not that it would help you anyway, but your claim is just wishful thinking on your part.

      Delete
    12. "My link already disposed of your story. There was nothing in the votes for "Browns" that suggested anything regarding Joe Louis."

      Actually, your link only brought an opinion. I hardly think that opinion trumps others simply because you choose to believe one opinion over another. BTW, of course the Browns would support the team being named after Paul Brown, that way they can excuse their racism in a fashion that you'll support a racist name and be able to find an excuse for it. Good for you.

      "So your claim is that the renamed team is based on Joe Louis, while the original one wasn't?"

      No, my claim is that the current Cleveland Browns are an expansion team. The entire team and front office left for another city and Cleveland had to ask the NFL if it could have another team. It isn't MY fault the chose the same racist word as their team name. I'm glad you support racism in some instances but are adamantly against it in other instances. Nothing hypocritical about that.

      "That's because you can't accept facts that prove you wrong."

      I saw no facts. I saw opinion that you choose to favor over other opinion.

      "The Browns and the NFL both say that you're wrong, and there's no evidence for you to make an argument to the contrary."

      I brought my evidence. What you choose to do with it is your own choice. The evidence I brought is just as valid as the stuff you brought. Prove me wrong.

      Delete
    13. "My *sole point* here, which you haven't said anything about, is that the appeal to tradition rates somewhere between "not applicable" and idiotic."

      Woop-de-doo. What do I care what your "point" is. I'm not making a "tradition" argument. Maybe you haven't actually read what I've written? Because in my second post (http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/09/hey-washington-change-your-damn-name.html?showComment=1412388960113#c2327594504194830285) I fully explained my support of a name for a team that provides a source of pride for a people who were mercilessly murdered by foreign invaders of their land. The word "Redskins" was a word associated with causing fear among the attackers. Now you make it into a racist word simply because you've been brainwashed by the nation that actually committed those merciless murders. Your reasoning doesn't make sense, and you've yet to explain how it does make sense to change the meaning of a word that created fear among invaders into a word that is racist towards the defenders of their land. And you've yet to explain why you haven't protested against the team name of "Washington Senators" since it was the Senators in Washington who authorized that genocidal treatment of the native inhabitants of this land.

      Delete
    14. "What do I care what your "point" is."

      OK, this is progress. I now understand why what you say never makes any fucking sense!

      Delete
    15. I take it that you, in fact, did not read my post and still have no idea that I gave you a valid reason to support the name of Washington Redskins. And, that would be why you are whining about me not getting your "point" that I'm not arguing for/against? As I said, what do I care about your point that it is silly to use "tradition" as the reason to support the team name, since I am not arguing either for or against it? Maybe you should address my "point" that Redskins is a valid name based on pride and fearsomeness, then the word was transformed into a bad word by those who were responsible for the genocidal actions against them. Your comparison of the word redskins to the "N"-word are illogical, since the n-word was never a source of pride of the people it was describing. It was always derogatory, and now is only used by racists. Everyone else says n-word. Redskins, however, was a source of pride for the Native Americans and instilled fear among their enemies as they were being brutally murdered by an invading foreign force. The the word was changed (by a very, very small group of people) to mean something derogatory. Sorry, but that very, very small group of people are in the wrong and the word should remain a source of pride for a race that was genocidally removed from their own homeland.

      Delete
    16. "Actually, your link only brought an opinion. I hardly think that opinion trumps others simply because you choose to believe one opinion over another."

      That's hilarious, because here's you in response to that link: "So the "Browns" comes from a derogatory word towards African-Americans, yet you support (and defend) that name and hate one that describes American Indians."
      You made it very clear that you believed that your baseless belief trumped the opinion of the NFL and the very team that you're spouting off about. But, now that you've been proven wrong, now you need to reduce everything to "opinion" in order to save face. Too late. You were wrong, and you should have let it go by now.

      "BTW, of course the Browns would support the team being named after Paul Brown, that way they can excuse their racism in a fashion that you'll support a racist name and be able to find an excuse for it."

      Why would they need to excuse racism, when there are always people like you to defend it? Besides that, you haven't even explained how it would be racist. Did Joe Louis object to the name? It's not automatically racist to mention race. Look up "Darryl Dawkins" for another lesson.

      "No, my claim is that the current Cleveland Browns are an expansion team."

      That's irrelevant, obviously. See your comment immediately below.

      "It isn't MY fault the chose the same racist word as their team name."

      If it's the same origin for the name, then how would you differentiate between discussion of the first team and the expansion team?

      "I saw no facts."

      It's a fact that Joe Louis had nothing to do with the votes for the name. Read the article again.

      "I brought my evidence."

      The opinion of one person is "evidence"? You can't have it both ways.

      "Prove me wrong."

      Bring something to prove yourself right. One person's claim isn't evidence that all of the people who voted for the name happened, by some insane coincidence, to be coming up with a shortened version of a nickname for a boxer who had nothing to do with the city or the team. Read that twice, just so you don't have any excuse not to understand it.

      And, again, your entire argument is useless. If the name was racist, then there should be protest. Even if you had a valid claim here, it doesn't excuse the name of Redskins. Try to remember that you're explicitly defending an offensive team name, while also jumping through hoops to pretend that I'm supporting racism by not sharing your delusion about another team's name.

      Delete
    17. "Your comparison of the word redskins to the "N"-word are illogical, since the n-word was never a source of pride of the people it was describing."

      Where is your evidence that "redskins" was ever a "source of pride"? And where is your evidence that Native Americans support the name today?

      "The the word was changed (by a very, very small group of people) to mean something derogatory. Sorry, but that very, very small group of people are in the wrong and the word should remain a source of pride for a race that was genocidally removed from their own homeland."

      Whether the word was "changed" by one person or a million, you just admitted that it's derogatory. So now your argument is that the name is offensive, and the nature of the term should be changed just because you think it "should remain a source of pride".

      So, what exactly is your timeline here? If the name hasn't lost it's status as being derogatory within a year, will you realize that it's probably easier for the team to change their name? Or will you just hold on indefinitely, insisting that the meaning of the term itself has to change?

      By the way, since you think it's relevant that the meaning of "redskins" was supposedly changed by a "very, very small group of people", then it's also relevant that your previously claimed "evidence" is only one person trying to change the meaning of "Browns". It's a shame that you didn't think of that before you posted.

      Delete
    18. That should be "its status", not "it's status".

      Delete
    19. "Maybe you should address my "point" that Redskins is a valid name based on pride and fearsomeness, then the word was transformed into a bad word by those who were responsible for the genocidal actions against them."

      Not my argument to make. The Native Americans who are offended by it have already made it. You saying otherwise (or for that matter anyone else saying otherwise) doesn't directly contradict that. And it matters naught who *made* it offensive. If they *DID* then it *IS*.

      Delete
    20. Eddie, those few complainers aren't the only ones making the news.
      http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Native-American-Chief-Talks-About-Redskins/cdb3c94e-f5c6-4d98-9acd-18d7fb768bb7
      “It’s not degrading in one bit and that’s why I sent you guys an email. It just bothered me that somebody would twist something so negatively when it’s a positive.”
      He also used words like "proud", "honored" when describing the use of Redskin. So, it turns out I am right (Native Americans aren't offended by Redskins) and you don't even have a stick in the fight. You've already admitted you are not Indian. So, if the best you can do is to use a couple liberal Native Americans as the basis for your whines. Too bad there are an equal (or more) than that amount who support and find pride in the word Redskin.
      This is just another liberal whine about something that isn't real ... just something made up in their heads by their tiny little brains and trying to force it into the American lifestyle in order to show themselves that they have some kind of importance. Too bad they actually don't and so many people see right through their (your) antics.
      http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

      Delete
    21. "So, it turns out I am right (Native Americans aren't offended by Redskins) and you don't even have a stick in the fight."

      You're using "Native Americans" as a general term, since nobody ever claimed that every single one objected to the name.

      Dodson wants to say that others can't speak for him, but then the article wants to pretend that he speaks for 700 people. Also, black people can refer to each other with the n-word without being racist, but it's not the same thing when a white person says it. The same concept applies here. Using "redskin" within their own group doesn't automatically make the use of it as a team name acceptable.

      Besides, you already admitted that it was derogatory, so you can't claim that it "isn't real".

      But, even if you hadn't already destroyed your own argument;

      From your link: "Perhaps this uncertainty shouldn’t matter — because the word has an undeniably racist history, or because the team says it uses the word with respect, or because in a truly decent society, some would argue, what hurts a few should be avoided by all."
      Note the phrase "undeniable racist history".

      And: "There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans."
      I read that link after I made the same point above. Funny how the concept didn't sink in after you read it once already.

      And: "Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million."
      Great link, William. If Dodson can testify on behalf of 700 people, now you have 1.2 million against you.

      "Marshall, however, had a reputation as a racist. He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support “the principle of racial integration in any form.”"

      Sounds like Donald Sterling. Maybe you want to argue that Marshall wasn't really racist? You've already said that the naming of the "Browns" was racist due to the myth that it had something to do with Joe Louis, so the fact that Marshall was a bigot might just have some impact on how the name is supposed to be perceived. No, that would actually require sensibility on your part, wouldn't it?

      You really wanted people to read that article, which severely undermined your point, just to show that it's uncertain how many Native Americans oppose the name? You must have copied the wrong link.

      Delete
    22. " The same concept applies here."

      No it doesn't and you can't show how they are equal to each other in any way.


      "Marshall, however, had a reputation as a racist."

      Sen. Robert Byrd had a "reputation as a racist" too, yet you fully accepted him into your fold? Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? And are you seriously trying to equalize black integration to a name that is a source of pride to others? You still have to address how naming the Cleveland Browns after a "brown" boxer isn't considered racism. Since calling a black man brown is the same as calling him black ... it seems you are being quite a bit hypocritical in your explanations (and excuses) for supporting racism sometimes, but not other times.

      "I read that link after I made the same point above."

      Can you give me ONE example of a school naming themselves the "niggers"? If not, then your point is mute and a giant failure on your part. Just admit this is another of your liberal hypocrisies in action. Wearing egg on your face may make it easier for you to eat, but only shows you aren't as intelligent as you think you are.

      Delete
    23. As a caveat to your statement about Indian tribes naming their high school teams the "Redskins". Does that ONLY happen on the reservations or has it happened outside the reservations?
      And, about those reservations ... how can you support a government that continues to segregate people based on race? Why are there still reservations in existence in your anti-racially minded nation? Are there any reservations for African-Americans? Or are there only ones for Native Americans?
      If you're going to whine about racism at least follow through and don't be such a wuss about it. Follow through on your whines about racism against Native Americans and be vocal about why there are still reservations. Or does it take a non-racist right-winger to remind you of your hypocrisy before you start doing what you say is right (but only do it if it's convenient)?

      Delete
    24. "No it doesn't and you can't show how they are equal to each other in any way."

      They're both derogatory terms which are used among the minority populations that they refer to. What difference are you claiming? Be specific.

      "Sen. Robert Byrd had a "reputation as a racist" too, yet you fully accepted him into your fold?"

      I never voted for Byrd, nor have I ever endorsed his racist behavior. Marshall, however, established the very thing that you are explicitly defending. Your words work against you: "you can't show how they are equal to each other in any way".

      "And are you seriously trying to equalize black integration to a name that is a source of pride to others?"

      Are you afraid to say that opposition to integration is racist? It has nothing to do with equalizing anything. You ranted about some supposed support for Sterling, but you want to support the actions of a known racist. Why is that?

      "You still have to address how naming the Cleveland Browns after a "brown" boxer isn't considered racism."

      You didn't address what I said on the matter. Go back and read, then I may forgive you for your errant comment.

      "Since calling a black man brown is the same as calling him black ... it seems you are being quite a bit hypocritical in your explanations (and excuses) for supporting racism sometimes, but not other times."

      It's not racist to refer to skin color by itself. Again, look up Darryl Dawkins. And you're supporting racism by advocating that the Redskins keep their derogatory name.

      "Can you give me ONE example of a school naming themselves the "niggers"?"

      I don't have to. The point would be that both terms can be used by those that it's used against, and that doesn't change the general meaning. You wouldn't call a Native American a "redskin" just because they may say it to each other. High school team names don't affect that.

      Again, you already admitted that it's derogatory, and your own link shows that you are offending over a million Native Americans. Shameful.

      Delete
    25. "As a caveat to your statement about Indian tribes naming their high school teams the "Redskins". Does that ONLY happen on the reservations or has it happened outside the reservations?"

      Sorry, did you say my statement? Did you not read your own link? Also, look up "caveat". You're using the term incorrectly.

      "And, about those reservations ... how can you support a government that continues to segregate people based on race? Why are there still reservations in existence in your anti-racially minded nation?"

      Who said that there was an "anti-racially minded nation"? Who said that I support the idea of reservations? Maybe you should avoid making assumptions in order to deflect from your racist attitude.

      "Are there any reservations for African-Americans?"

      Why would there be? Native Americans were here before anyone else, which is why they have protected land. What relevance would this possibly have to anything, even if your question made any sense?

      "If you're going to whine about racism at least follow through and don't be such a wuss about it."

      So, I'm supposed to comment on random aspects of racism in order to say that a derogatory name shouldn't be used for an NFL team? That sounds like your insisting that people go off-topic in order to preemptively address any issue that might spontaneously pop into your addled mind. Sorry, your demands are unreasonable, as always.

      Delete
    26. "I don't have to."

      Does that mean you can't? That means your specific argument, based on that happening, has nothing to base it on for it being racist.

      "Native Americans were here before anyone else, which is why they have protected land."

      You mean before the government (that you work for) murdered them in a genocidal campaign that you seem to overlook? The same government (that you work for) enslaved other non-whites. Good for you to overlook some racism. Is that your form of support?

      "So, I'm supposed to comment on random aspects of racism in order to say that a derogatory name shouldn't be used for an NFL team?"

      Because YOU consider it derogatory, it should be dis-allowed? What other words do you consider derogatory? And at what point should we take your opinion, on what words are derogatory, as gospel?

      Delete
    27. "Does that mean you can't?"

      It means that I don't have to, so there's no reason to even make the effort.

      "That means your specific argument, based on that happening, has nothing to base it on for it being racist."

      How was anything I said "specific" regarding "based on that happening"? Provide a quote.

      "You mean before the government (that you work for) murdered them in a genocidal campaign that you seem to overlook?"

      I'm not overlooking anything of the sort. I'm the one who wants Native Americans to be treated with respect, while you spit in the face of over a million such people.

      "The same government (that you work for) enslaved other non-whites. Good for you to overlook some racism."

      It's not clear what commentary you're expecting, or why it would be needed. Are you going to assume that I advocate theft, murder and rape if I don't say so at the beginning of every thread, or what?

      "Because YOU consider it derogatory, it should be dis-allowed?"

      You: "The the word was changed (by a very, very small group of people) to mean something derogatory."
      You admitted that it was derogatory, so it's too late to pretend that it's just my opinion.

      Besides, of course, you could use the same sort of argument to advocate any sort of offensive speech or stance. For instance: "You think that it's wrong to stop interracial couples from getting married. Why is your opinion gospel?" We evaluate what's reasonable and what's offensive as a society, and we act accordingly. You are behind the curve as far as disposing of "redskins" is concerned.

      Also, you failed to address the question. Why am I supposed to comment on reservations or any other random thought that you happen to come up with, before you even present it?

      Delete
    28. "I'm the one who wants Native Americans to be treated with respect, while you spit in the face of over a million such people."

      Then let them decide what is respectful and not you or the other (liberal types like you) who are making decisions for everyone else as to what is respectful for a people you know nothing about.

      "You admitted that it was derogatory, so it's too late to pretend that it's just my opinion."

      I have admitted no such thing. You even provided the quote where I said only a very, very small group of people find it derogatory.

      Delete
    29. " You are behind the curve as far as disposing of "redskins" is concerned."

      I'm not behind any curve. Why would any number of Native Americans want to "dispose" of a word that concocts pride within their population? Because YOU have determined what is better for the them than they can for themselves?

      And who is this "we" you speak of that is evaluating? Are you an American Indian? Is that your heritage? Or are you part of the race who performed genocide to the people you are deciding what is good for them or not good for them?

      Delete
    30. "Then let them decide what is respectful and not you or the other (liberal types like you) who are making decisions for everyone else as to what is respectful for a people you know nothing about."

      Then you have to listen to the 1.2 million who want the name changed, and abandon the cause for the 700 or so that don't.

      "I have admitted no such thing. You even provided the quote where I said only a very, very small group of people find it derogatory."

      No, liar, you said that the word was changed to something derogatory, not that a small group of people found it to be derogatory. That claim would have been absurd, anyway. What's the idea, that there's some conspiracy theory between dictionary manufacturers to sway public opinion? It's listed as offensive because that's the nature of the term. Your own link said that it had an "undeniable racist history", remember?

      "Why would any number of Native Americans want to "dispose" of a word that concocts pride within their population?"

      It's not being used within their population that way, obviously. Are all of the Redskins players Native Americans?

      "Because YOU have determined what is better for the them than they can for themselves?"

      How are you not doing exactly that? The lawsuit to remove the name carries 1.2 million Native Americans in support, but you want to tell them that you know better than they do.

      "And who is this "we" you speak of that is evaluating?"

      Society, to answer your stupid question.

      "Or are you part of the race who performed genocide to the people you are deciding what is good for them or not good for them?"

      I don't believe that anyone in my ancestry had anything to do with that, since they were all still in Europe while that was going on. Besides that, if nobody besides a Native American can decide what's good for them, then NFL owners of other races have no right to name teams after Native Americans, whether they think they're honoring them or not. Because they don't know, apparently. Ergo, you're obligated to go even beyond what Eddie said, and insist that all teams named after Native Americans change their names to something completely unrelated to their population.

      Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    31. "Then you have to listen to the 1.2 million who want the name changed, and abandon the cause for the 700 or so that don't."

      Your math doesn't add up. I thought I saw that there were over 2 million Native Americans living in the US. How does you math work?

      Delete
    32. Read your own links. I didn't claim that the two numbers added up to two million; we'll just have to remain unsure about the views of those currently unaffiliated here.

      Delete
    33. Of the 2.9 million Native Americans, you say 1.2 are complaining? I don't remember seeing that link. Could you reference it again? But, I guess those1.7 million who aren't complaining have no voice in this?

      Delete
    34. You can't locate your own links? That's hilarious.

      My previous post made it clear that you don't know where those other 1.7 million Native Americans stand on the issue. You can't claim that they "aren't complaining", because you have no way of knowing such a thing. Are you trying to say that attributing your viewpoint to them is necessary in order to give them a "voice"? That would be insanely egotistical, yet not surprising.

      And if that's the case, at what point do you believe that a percentage is significant? 1.2 million would be over 40% of 2.9 million. Wikipedia says that born-again/evangelical Christians made up 41% of the U.S. population in 2004. Apparently the interests of every single person like you are irrelevant, since you don't make up a majority.

      So, even in your current best-case scenario, a significant percentage of Native Americans find the name offensive. Unless you want to argue that the population of born-again Christians should be ignored, then you can't very well argue that 1.2 million Native Americans should be ignored.

      Delete
    35. Well, if that's the case for born again Christians, why are we not allowed to have prayer in public schools? It seems that your philosophy works against you on that premise.

      Delete
    36. Because organized prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, obviously.

      Anything else on the actual topic, or are you going to try to change the subject completely at this point?

      Delete
    37. "Anything else on the actual topic, or are you going to try to change the subject completely at this point?"

      says the one who started talking about born again Christians in America during a discussion on words that make Native Americans proud. Funny how when your points are shot down you change the subject then whine about the subject being changed.
      I take it you are done now that you've embarrassed yourself so much? Good, it would be better if you stopped while you're way behind. You haven't been able to make one good argument supporting your stance since you started. I'm surprised it took you this long to change the subject. Usually you do it within a post or two.

      Delete
    38. "says the one who started talking about born again Christians in America during a discussion on words that make Native Americans proud."

      I gave you perspective on the percentage of Native Americans that you were trying to disregard, which obviously worked exactly as I had intended. I didn't invite a conversation on your beliefs, while you asked a question about prayer in public schools. Also notice that in my post, I discussed the topic, while your previous post contained nothing except for that question. You lose.

      "I take it you are done now that you've embarrassed yourself so much?"

      Since you can't explain why 1.2 million Native Americans should be insulted based on your whim, I would say that you are done.

      Again, thanks for playing.

      Delete
    39. "I gave you perspective on the percentage of Native Americans that you were trying to disregard, which obviously worked exactly as I had intended."

      Well, if that was your intention, then you succeeded in showing your philosophy is a bit hypocritical. But, I've known that for a couple years, huh?

      "Again, thanks for playing."

      You're welcome. Anytime you want to look like a ditz, please respond to any of my posts.

      Delete
    40. "Well, if that was your intention, then you succeeded in showing your philosophy is a bit hypocritical."

      Still trying to change the topic? How sad. And no, the concept of plurality doesn't mean that every group automatically gets their way. It's obviously not possible, since different groups want different things. Your interests can be recognized without you being able to foist your views on everyone else in the country.

      This is especially obvious when your example involves personal expression of faith. Why would your interests require public school prayer for that? They clearly don't, so you're not proving anything about how people view your interests. It's in the interest of the general population and the Constitution to avoid mixing church and state. Your irrational demands are heard, but that doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to obey them.

      I hope that clears up your massive confusion on the matter.

      "Anytime you want to look like a ditz, please respond to any of my posts."

      Did you explain why 1.2 million Native Americans should remain insulted by a name which can be easily changed? Apparently "ditz" means someone who proves that you're a flaming racist.

      Delete
    41. "Your irrational demands are heard, but that doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to obey them."

      And, the same is true for the irrational demands that Washington Redskins change their name. Your irrational demands are heard, but NO ONE is obligated to obey them.

      "Did you explain why 1.2 million Native Americans should remain insulted by a name which can be easily changed? "

      We can always easily allow prayer in public schools instead of continually insulting that 41% of the population, just like we can force a name change to avoid insulting a similar percentage of another group of people. (note the hypocrisy on your part)

      BTW, you still have not provided proof that there are 1.2 million supporting Native Americans involved in this controversy. They last I read, there are a couple hundred or so. If you have proof of more, please bring it, otherwise you should not use un-authenticated statistics. It makes you look very ... well ... LIBERAL.

      Delete
    42. "And, the same is true for the irrational demands that Washington Redskins change their name. Your irrational demands are heard, but NO ONE is obligated to obey them."

      You do have the right to be as racist as you like, but that doesn't make calls for them to change the name "irrational demands". You already admitted that the name was derogatory, so it should be changed whether that qualifies as a "demand" or not.

      "We can always easily allow prayer in public schools instead of continually insulting that 41% of the population, just like we can force a name change to avoid insulting a similar percentage of another group of people. (note the hypocrisy on your part)"

      You aren't "insulted" by not being allowed to force your views on others. Quit crying.

      "BTW, you still have not provided proof that there are 1.2 million supporting Native Americans involved in this controversy."

      That's because you don't read your own links.

      "If you have proof of more, please bring it, otherwise you should not use un-authenticated statistics. It makes you look very ... well ... LIBERAL."

      Then, you're very liberal: "One simple example and the Church gives $6 million to the community. Let's see ... how many Church's are there? Hmmm ... 6 million times thousands equals ... perhaps what you whine about the Church NOT paying."
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html

      Delete
    43. "You do have the right to be as racist as you like, but that doesn't make calls for them to change the name "irrational demands". You already admitted that the name was derogatory, so it should be changed whether that qualifies as a "demand" or not."

      Supporting Native Americans who feel the name is a source of pride is not racist. And ... you've already provided the quote (of mine) where I did not admit such a thing. But, it's good to see you use your usual tactics (lying) to disparage others.

      "You aren't "insulted" by not being allowed to force your views on others."

      Changing the subject again? You always seem to do that when you lose an argument. Stay true to your tactics. LOL

      "Then, you're very liberal"

      Changing to yet another subject? Wow, I must have totally blown all of your arguments out of the water this time. You have nothing left to say about the actual subject of this conversation, anymore. Classic brabantioism.

      Do you really want to continue looking like a fool, or would you prefer just meekly stopping while you're way behind?

      Delete
    44. "Supporting Native Americans who feel the name is a source of pride is not racist."

      Supporting a racially offensive name is racist. The 700 Native Americans that you referred to don't help you.

      "And ... you've already provided the quote (of mine) where I did not admit such a thing."

      I provided the quote where you said that it was derogatory. If a term is "changed" to something, then that's what it currently is.

      "Changing the subject again?"

      You: "We can always easily allow prayer in public schools instead of continually insulting that 41% of the population, just like we can force a name change to avoid insulting a similar percentage of another group of people. (note the hypocrisy on your part)"
      I addressed your comment, obviously.

      "Changing to yet another subject?"

      No, I'm demonstrating your hypocrisy. What's especially funny about your comment is that on the other thread, I already pointed out where you brought up military actions in Iraq out of nowhere. Was that you changing the subject because all of your arguments were blown out of the water? So, when responding to proof of your hypocrisy, you only dig your hole deeper.

      Keep at it for as long as you feel the need.

      Delete
    45. "I addressed your comment, obviously."

      By admitting that YOU changed the subject? You really aren't very good at this, and each post adds to that perspective.

      Delete
    46. You: "We can always easily allow prayer in public schools instead of continually insulting that 41% of the population, just like we can force a name change to avoid insulting a similar percentage of another group of people. (note the hypocrisy on your part)"
      Me: "You aren't "insulted" by not being allowed to force your views on others."

      See how my response logically follows your comment? Read through it a few times if you need to. And if you really thought that it was a change of subject, why the hell would you ask a question about the supposedly new subject? If it's not relevant, then don't further it. If it is relevant, then you have nothing to complain about.

      Again, I gave you perspective on the percentage of Native Americans that you want to disregard by pointing out that you belong to that same percentage. You then cried that you are being ignored because we don't have prayer in public schools. If you think that you have that much influence as part of your 41%, then so do the Native Americans suing to have the name of the team changed.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    47. I'm pretty sure that if you DO actually read it, then you can see I'm asking about your inconsistency regarding percentiles of the population getting their way. AKA pointing out your hypocrisy.

      Delete
    48. You aren't showing any inconsistency, because this has nothing to do with a minority "getting their way" in the face of any opposition. You have no way of asserting that changing the name of the team would bother the remaining 1.7 million Native Americans in the slightest. My point is that you're trying to disregard the 1.2 million Native Americans that your own link cited, based on your opinion alone.

      By the way, I love the implication that talking about something off-topic is fine for you if you're trying to prove a point, while you don't recognize those extenuating circumstances whenever I mention something in order to prove a point. You're a hypocrite.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    49. "By the way, I love the implication that talking about something off-topic is fine for you if you're trying to prove a point, while you don't recognize those extenuating circumstances whenever I mention something in order to prove a point."

      I never said anything about you changing the subject until you whined that I did by answering your implications.

      Delete
    50. "I never said anything about you changing the subject until you whined that I did by answering your implications."

      You've accused me of changing the subject countless times. Were you unaware of that?

      What you're not grasping is that not only was there no inconsistency on my part, but you abandoned any attempt to address the argument by instead focusing on that alone. Your response demonstrated perfectly that you expect your 41% to be heard, which shows how absurd it is for you to try to disregard a much more genuine complaint from Native Americans. Even if you had a point, you never disputed mine.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    51. "You've accused me of changing the subject countless times. Were you unaware of that?"

      No, I was not unaware ( I hope that was clear enough for you LOL). I replied to your off-topic comment and then you whine that I'm taking it off topic. So, naturally, I pointed out your error, but you feel you never said anything off-topic. Typical liberal ... refusing to take accountability for what they say. You ever wonder where I get my inclinations ... about you people? You're a perfect example. Another is Eddie who whines about this or that, then stops discussing it as soon as he can. It's as if he had a life and didn't have a blog site that he wanted to run. But, yet, he continues to provide more ... stuff, and whines about those who disagree with him actually post something on his obscure blog site.

      (towards Eddie); Sorry pal, you put your shit out here and people find it and comment on it whether you like it or not. Just because I'm the ONLY right-winger who posts here, doesn't mean I'm the only one who sees your stuff. If you ask me, if you run a blog and welcome people to argue, you would at least put up with their shit instead of trying to chase them away. But, that's just me, I don't own a blog like you do.

      Delete
    52. "I replied to your off-topic comment and then you whine that I'm taking it off topic."

      I wasn't inviting an off-topic discussion. I was using an example to demonstrate a point. Was your reference to Robert Byrd supposed to be a subject for discussion? Again, you ignored everything else being discussed and wanted to focus on an aspect of what I said that didn't affect the point that I made.

      "So, naturally, I pointed out your error, but you feel you never said anything off-topic."

      So you did go off-topic when you brought up Robert Byrd. Then you're a hypocrite.

      "You ever wonder where I get my inclinations ... about you people?"

      No, the rationale of bigots is not interesting to me. It's just a way of you avoiding responsibility for your prejudicial behavior.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    53. "I wasn't inviting an off-topic discussion."

      I wasn't discussing your off-topic rationale. I was commenting that your example wan't the same as your usage of it in comparison to this situation. Since you claim 41% is enough to count, then I merely asked why you didn't support the 41% that seek something YOU don't approve of. It was a glaringly hypocritical moment, by you, for insinuating that YOUR feelings on any given subject is the deciding factor as to whether something is acceptable or not. It puts this entire discussion into perspective when you start dishing out names like 'racist', 'bigot', ect. I think it demonstrates your own traits that you are trying to pass off onto others to make yourself feel better about how you are, in reality.

      "Was your reference to Robert Byrd supposed to be a subject for discussion?"

      Yes. This discussion is involving race issues, isn't it? You are calling me a racist for thinking the team name should be allowed to be used, correct? That makes using a racist open game in this discussion on race relations. Sorry, I'M not the hypocrite, as much as you like to wish I was. There's only room for one hypocrite in this discussion, and it isn't me. (let's see if your <70 IQ is able to figure that one out).

      LMAO

      Delete
    54. "I wasn't discussing your off-topic rationale."

      There was no "off-topic rationale", because what I said was relevant to your argument.

      "Since you claim 41% is enough to count, then I merely asked why you didn't support the 41% that seek something YOU don't approve of."

      How is pushing public school prayer on the public equal to "enough to count"? That isn't your right, so denying that isn't a lack of "support".

      "It was a glaringly hypocritical moment, by you, for insinuating that YOUR feelings on any given subject is the deciding factor as to whether something is acceptable or not."

      So, let's say that 40% of the country is Christian and 40% is Muslim, and both groups want public school prayer that fits their respective faiths. At least one of them has to be denied, but you seem to think that both require "support" in the form of granting that absurd demand. That's obviously insane. Your example fails, even beyond the fact that public school prayer has been ruled unconstitutional.

      "It puts this entire discussion into perspective when you start dishing out names like 'racist', 'bigot', ect."

      In other words, I have to oppose the Constitution in order to appease some random nutjob on the internet. Sorry, that's not how it works. I support the rights of religious people, I simply differ from you by saying that your rights can't be allowed to infringe on the rights of everyone else.

      "Yes. This discussion is involving race issues, isn't it?"

      Then discussing evangelicals isn't "off-topic", because the discussion also involves minorities. I accept your apology in advance.

      "You are calling me a racist for thinking the team name should be allowed to be used, correct?"

      You are a racist for wanting to keep a name with a derogatory nature and undeniably racist history. Again, your own links condemned you. Also, go back and read the part about the racist that established the name in the first place. Why you insist on following such a glaring bigot bears some explanation.

      "That makes using a racist open game in this discussion on race relations."

      That would almost be reasonable if there was anything that connected me with Robert Byrd. You already knew that I never voted for him or supported him in any way, so there's no way for you to claim that bringing him up proved anything.

      I expect that Byrd believed that black people were "dangerous", though, much like you.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    55. "How is pushing public school prayer on the public equal to "enough to count"? "

      According to YOU, 41% is enough to create change according to how those 41% feel it should be changed. So, whether anything is pushed makes no difference as long as 41% of the people feel it is right to do it a certain way. Well, that's according to YOUR logic. Unless, of course, it refers to something YOU don't like, then that 41% of the people have no "right" to have their way. Like I said ... you're a hypocrite. And, if you're going to restrict certain people from attaining their goals, then you're a bigot also. And, since you are falsely claiming a race issue in this discussion, you paint yourself as a racist also. But, I've already known that about you, from previous discussions.

      "Also, go back and read the part about the racist that established the name in the first place. "

      As in my Robert Byrd example. If you say I'm a racist for supporting a name that was given by a racist, then you are a racist for supporting any legislation that Robert Byrd authored/co-authored, since he started out as a racist also. If you're going to judge people, at least do it consistently instead of hypocritically. Wow, you proved yourself to be a hypocrite and racist in one sentence.

      You are fun to play with ... I wonder how many more times I can force you to post about silly stuff. I bet I can keep you strung along for weeks. Every time I post, you MUST have the last word. It's just in your nature, sorry for being the one to tell you.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    56. "According to YOU, 41% is enough to create change according to how those 41% feel it should be changed."

      I never said that, of course. What I was pointing out is that 41% can't be ignored as you wish to do. There's a difference, as I've explained already.

      "Unless, of course, it refers to something YOU don't like, then that 41% of the people have no "right" to have their way."

      Cry to the SCOTUS about it. I'm not going to feel guilty for respecting the Constitution.

      "And, if you're going to restrict certain people from attaining their goals, then you're a bigot also."

      That's quite the standard to enforce! Since there is virtually always more than one group trying to forward their agenda, that makes "bigot" entirely meaningless. Are you a bigot because you want to restrict child molesters from changing laws to suit their purpose? Hilarious.

      "And, since you are falsely claiming a race issue in this discussion, you paint yourself as a racist also."

      Not only did I not claim any such thing, but you still don't understand what "racist" actually means.

      "If you say I'm a racist for supporting a name that was given by a racist, then you are a racist for supporting any legislation that Robert Byrd authored/co-authored, since he started out as a racist also."

      No, that could only possibly apply to legislation that was relevant to race. Notice that "Redskins" is relevant to race, while the overall body of Byrd's legislative work is not. Even further, you have no way of asserting that I support any such piece of legislation. That would be just another assumption on your part.

      "You are fun to play with ... I wonder how many more times I can force you to post about silly stuff."

      Your comments are "silly stuff"? You're actually right about something, for once. It's quite a bit of fun to smack you around, so don't fool yourself into thinking that you're getting the better of anything by keeping me "strung along".

      "Every time I post, you MUST have the last word."

      Why would I let your blatant misrepresentations and psychotic excuses for logic go unanswered? Make a reasonable post, and I won't have anything to correct you on.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    57. "There's a difference, as I've explained already."

      Sorry, no difference .... as I've explained already.

      "I'm not going to feel guilty for respecting the Constitution."

      There's nothing in the constitution about school prayer. You must be thinking of some personal letter that an old president wrote to someone else. But, the FACTS are that there is nothing in the constitution about school prayer.

      " that makes "bigot" entirely meaningless"

      Which makes it so easy for you to throw it out there at people. Do you like how that works? You set the standard then whine about others adhering to it?

      " Notice that "Redskins" is relevant to race, while the overall body of Byrd's legislative work is not."

      So is "Browns", but you defend that racist word. Making you a racist. Sorry, but by your standards, you are a racist. Since some people consider that word to describe African-Americans to be racist, then you are a racist for defending the use of that word. It doesn't matter what the actual use of the word is, the simple fact that 'some' people consider it racist makes it fit within the standards YOU set for the use of "Redskin" being a racist word. And until you start admitting that "Browns" is a racist use of the word, then you are a hypocrite, too ... by your standards.
      However, none of that trumps the FACT that Byrd was a racist and you support his legislation in spite of his racism. Thanks for admitting your support of a racist.

      "Why would I let your blatant misrepresentations and psychotic excuses for logic go unanswered? "

      Because you're a toy being toyed with. I've made several reasonable posts, you stick to one ideal and deny it's application to similar situations. You've yet to explain how that works. Other than to say I'm a racist for adhering to YOUR logic, while you deny you're one while adhering to the same logic.

      "Make a reasonable post, and I won't have anything to correct you on."

      You have been proven to be a bigot, racist and hypocrite. How could you "correct" me on anything? Are you saying all people should be like you (a bigot, racist and hypocrite) or they are incorrect?

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    58. "Sorry, no difference .... as I've explained already."

      Your empty assertions aren't explanations.

      "There's nothing in the constitution about school prayer."

      There's nothing in the Constitution about television programming, either, but the government still can't suppress political programming that they disagree with. The Constitution is interpreted to address specific issues, so arguing that certain phrasing isn't there doesn't work.

      "Which makes it so easy for you to throw it out there at people."

      No, because I don't subscribe to your reasoning. Your post is what made the term meaningless, and I'm not responsible for what you say.

      "So is "Browns", but you defend that racist word."

      Not according to the facts. The team was named after a coach, not a boxer.

      "It doesn't matter what the actual use of the word is, the simple fact that 'some' people consider it racist makes it fit within the standards YOU set for the use of "Redskin" being a racist word."

      Your own link said that "Redskins" had an undeniably racist history. Dictionaries list it as offensive, and you said that it was derogatory as well. This isn't equivalent to you stubbornly insisting that the Browns were named after Joe Louis, while you have no argument to demonstrate that.

      "And until you start admitting that "Browns" is a racist use of the word, then you are a hypocrite, too ... by your standards."

      You'd actually have to make an argument to that effect. Otherwise, I'm not obligated to buy into your fantasies.

      "However, none of that trumps the FACT that Byrd was a racist and you support his legislation in spite of his racism."

      Which legislation are you referring to? Be specific. And are you sure you really want to state that as an absolute? The idea was that if you were a racist for supporting the team name that was established by a racist, then I was supposedly a racist for some mysterious support of Byrd. If you're going to claim that I'm actually a racist for that unstated support, then you're admitting to being a racist for embracing the team name. You might want to think a little about that one.

      "Because you're a toy being toyed with."

      Then everything you've said is void, because you aren't trying to make legitimate arguments. Is that your story, now?

      "You've yet to explain how that works."

      I've explained everything I've said. Give me an example, and I'll steer you straight.

      "You have been proven to be a bigot, racist and hypocrite."

      Your empty assertions aren't proof, either. I've demonstrated each of those for you, while you just spout hollow accusations.

      Keep digging.

      Delete
    59. "Your empty assertions aren't explanations."

      But my complete explanations are. What you do with them is your own choice. I don't require you to believe anything, I just post what I want. I, certainly, don't care what you think of my opinion. This isn't your blog to make that decision. When you grow up and move out of your basement, perhaps you can own your own blog and control who says what. Oh, wait, Eddie posts all of his from his basement. I guess you don't have to move after all. Just get one and then you can tell me what the rules are.

      "The Constitution is interpreted to address specific issues, so arguing that certain phrasing isn't there doesn't work."

      Then why are you inferring that the wording, about school prayer, IS there? That seems quite dishonest of you. Typical brabantio behavior, if you ask me.

      "The team was named after a coach, not a boxer."

      There are no FACTS to prove that, only hearsay. Do you actually have a transcript of what happened, at that time, or are you guessing like all of the links you provided have been doing?

      "Dictionaries list it as offensive, and you said that it was derogatory as well."

      And, if you go to the Oxford dictionary, it explains what I said (near the beginning of this article). That the white genocidal government changed the meaning of the word to fit their own desires. So, factually, to the American Indian, it is a word that describes pride and fearlessness of their own people. What your genocidal government did with that word is of little concern of mine. I am flying with what the American Indian thinks of the word. And, apparently far fewer think it is derogatory than do not.

      "Which legislation are you referring to? Be specific."

      I don't need to. You admitted you supported the racist when you said: "No, that could only possibly apply to legislation that was relevant to race. Notice that "Redskins" is relevant to race, while the overall body of Byrd's legislative work is not.". Obviously meaning that you support him at times and at other times you do not. Facts are, you admitted to supporting him at some time. That makes you a racist for supporting a racist. Well, according to YOUR standards.

      "Then everything you've said is void, because you aren't trying to make legitimate arguments."

      Why do you keep responding, if your not a toy?

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    60. "But my complete explanations are."

      Examples?

      "Then why are you inferring that the wording, about school prayer, IS there?"

      Where did I supposedly do that? Be specific.

      "There are no FACTS to prove that, only hearsay."

      Do you even know what "hearsay" is? What "FACTS" prove that the team was named after Joe Louis? Hint: those two questions are linked, somehow.

      "Do you actually have a transcript of what happened, at that time, or are you guessing like all of the links you provided have been doing?"

      Joe Louis had nothing to do with the vote, nor the city of Cleveland. As mentioned in the article, there's nothing at all to suggest that the people of the city were thinking of Joe Louis, while Brown was the actual subject of discussion there. Do you have an explanation of how all of those people independently imagined "Browns" as based off of a shortened version of a nickname of a boxer who had nothing to do with the team or the city? Your theory is a joke. It's a myth, and you can't extract yourself from believing in it.

      "That the white genocidal government changed the meaning of the word to fit their own desires."

      Then the perception of the word is changed to something negative. That's its current standing, which makes it offensive. You can wish and pray for that to change, but in the meantime, you're still clinging to an offensive name.

      "So, factually, to the American Indian, it is a word that describes pride and fearlessness of their own people."

      Which is why 1.2 million Native Americans are suing to have the name changed?

      "And, apparently far fewer think it is derogatory than do not."

      That's a wild assumption, even according to your own links.

      "I don't need to."

      Yes, you do. Your accusations require substantiation.

      "Obviously meaning that you support him at times and at other times you do not."

      No, that means exactly what it expressed. It's not racist to support, say, a housing bill just because Byrd had something to do with it. The merits of the legislation would have to be evaluated, and it would have to have something to do with race in order to reflect on me. You have no argument to the contrary.

      "That makes you a racist for supporting a racist. Well, according to YOUR standards."

      You've already accepted that supposed standard: "However, none of that trumps the FACT that Byrd was a racist and you support his legislation in spite of his racism. Thanks for admitting your support of a racist."
      Meanwhile, the person who established the name "Redskins" was a flaming racist, and you support the name that others point out as being racially offensive. It's not similar to unnamed legislation that you have no evidence of support for.

      "Why do you keep responding, if your not a toy?"

      Because your misrepresentations and displays of bigotry aren't going to go unchallenged. Again, either you're making genuine arguments or you're playing games. If you're playing games, then you're a troll. If that's not the case, then try to make legitimate arguments and don't behave like an under-medicated six year-old with severe ADHD. Fair enough?

      Delete
    61. "That's its current standing, which makes it offensive."

      To YOU. Not Native Americans. Which is my point, that you fail to grasp. You fall in line with the genocidal government that tells you to believe exactly as they want you to. Good for you. Glad to see you're an independent thinker. Wait, you're a liberal ... you do as you're told, you don't think for yourself. Nothing unexpected there. LOL

      "Which is why 1.2 million Native Americans are suing to have the name changed?"

      That isn't happening. And, you've still failed to show it to be true.

      "It's not racist to support, say, a housing bill just because Byrd had something to do with it. "

      Ah, so you admit supporting a known racist. It's better to let it all out than to hold it in. You're a good liberal for supporting known racists. At least, now, you've admitted what legislature you support a known racist over. Did you know that Donald Sterling was heavily into "housing". Looks like your 2 racist friends cooperated for the financial benefit of both. You are such a racist.

      "Fair enough?"

      When you act like an adult, I will. Otherwise, STFU

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    62. "To YOU. Not Native Americans."

      To the general population. Your assumptions about Native Americans are worthless.

      "You fall in line with the genocidal government that tells you to believe exactly as they want you to."

      The government dictates the meanings of words? Fascinating.

      "That isn't happening."

      Read your own links.

      "Ah, so you admit supporting a known racist."

      I didn't say that I supported anything. You're also failing to address the point. It's not "racist" to support legislation even if Byrd had something to do with it. The nature of the legislation would have to be taken into account.

      "Did you know that Donald Sterling was heavily into "housing"."

      It's hilarious that you think that's actually relevant here. What housing bill helped Sterling?

      "When you act like an adult, I will. Otherwise, STFU"

      Even more laughs. I'd love for you to explain what acting "like an adult" entails, so I can throw a dozen examples of your own behavior back in your sniveling face. You don't have the intestinal fortitude for that, though, much like you couldn't back up your claims about my "inferring" of wording in the Constitution and "FACTS" which show that the Browns were named after Joe Louis.

      Like I said, if you're playing games, you're just a troll. Either make a legitimate argument or accept the label that you deserve.

      Delete
    63. "What housing bill helped Sterling?"

      The one by Byrd that you so heavily supported. You are such a racist.

      " I'd love for you to explain what acting "like an adult" entails, so I can throw a dozen examples of your own behavior back in your sniveling face."

      Are you crying, again? I'm sorry to be so mean to you. If your feelings are hurt, just let me know and I'll try to make up for it.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    64. "The one by Byrd that you so heavily supported."

      Which bill was that? Do you have a link?

      "Are you crying, again?"

      Aren't you the one who was just crying that I wasn't acting "like an adult"?

      As I said, you can't back up what you say. I win.

      Delete
    65. "Which bill was that? Do you have a link?"

      Why would I have to provide links to back up things YOU say?
      You: "It's not racist to support, say, a housing bill just because Byrd had something to do with it."
      Provide a link to prove that it had nothing to do with racism. If you can't follow your own rules, why the hell are you even playing the game?

      "As I said, you can't back up what you say."

      You do not back up anything you say. Let's see a link to 1.2 million Native Americans and let's see a link to Byrd non-racist housing bill that you say are present. You LOSE

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    66. "Why would I have to provide links to back up things YOU say?"

      You obviously are referring to a specific bill. What do you think you're talking about?

      "Provide a link to prove that it had nothing to do with racism."

      What "it" are you referring to?

      "You do not back up anything you say. Let's see a link to 1.2 million Native Americans and let's see a link to Byrd non-racist housing bill that you say are present."

      You linked to the 1.2 million Native Americans, so you should have already seen it. And, I never even claimed that there was a specific bill, but since you said that Sterling benefited from it, then you can't possibly need to see evidence of the existence of any bill. You claimed that it existed, all on your own. What you're talking about is now your responsibility to explain.

      Delete
    67. "What "it" are you referring to?"

      I don't know. You're the one who claimed Byrd had something to do with a housing bill. Not me. You prove what you say. Why would anyone with a brain expect someone else to prove what you say? Oh, wait ... LOL

      "but since you said that Sterling benefited from it,"

      I never said that. But, since you have a serious reading comprehension problem, I expect you to not be able to read what is actually written.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    68. "I don't know. You're the one who claimed Byrd had something to do with a housing bill."

      Where did I "claim" that? I don't see any specific bill mentioned, only a type of bill. You might want to scroll up and read it again.

      "I never said that."

      You:"Looks like your 2 racist friends cooperated for the financial benefit of both."
      Me:"What housing bill helped Sterling?"
      You: "The one by Byrd that you so heavily supported."
      Clearly, you did say that Sterling benefited from a specific bill. So, you just got caught lying. And on top of that, you just admitted that you didn't have any bill in mind, so you were lying when you made the claim in the first place.

      Would you like to keep digging?

      Delete
    69. "Clearly, you did say that Sterling benefited from a specific bill. So, you just got caught lying."

      I wasn't lying. You said Byrd sponsored a housing bill. Both Sterling and Byrd were racist democrats during the 60's/60's/70's/80's, so obviously, what ever housing bill you were referring to by the racist Byrd would have benefited the racist slumlord Sterling. If you want to bring evidence of that housing bill you were referring to, then by all means do it. Somehow I highly doubt you will bring any evidence of the claims you make. That is, after all, your usual MO.

      "You might want to scroll up and read it again."

      I don't need to. I never said you claimed a "specific" bill, only a "type" of bill. If you're going to deny you mentioned a "housing bill" then that would make YOU the liar, not me. Surely you had a specific bill in mind or you wouldn't have mentioned it. You wouldn't want to bring proof of that "housing bill" that Byrd had something to do with, would you? I didn't think so, you usually don't back up what you say.

      ROTFLMAO


      Delete
    70. Let's compare your comments here;

      "You said Byrd sponsored a housing bill. Both Sterling and Byrd were racist democrats during the 60's/60's/70's/80's, so obviously, what ever housing bill you were referring to by the racist Byrd would have benefited the racist slumlord Sterling."

      Also: "I never said you claimed a "specific" bill, only a "type" of bill."

      If you were talking about "what ever housing bill" that I "was referring to", then that would be a specific bill, not a type of bill. And, of course, I never said that Byrd sponsored a housing bill. Further, it's not possible for you to say "you said Byrd sponsored a housing bill" and that you're only claiming that I mentioned a type of bill at the same time, obviously. Whatever bill you imagine you're talking about would be specific, not merely a category.

      Also, again, you:"The one by Byrd that you so heavily supported."
      And: "You're the one who claimed Byrd had something to do with a housing bill."
      That doesn't fit with your assertion that you didn't say that I claimed a specific bill. At least make your story consistent.

      "Surely you had a specific bill in mind or you wouldn't have mentioned it."

      Explain why a type of bill couldn't be used as an example in that context. Again, you'll have to scroll up to see exactly how the type of bill was mentioned in order to make your case.

      Good luck.

      Delete
    71. Well, I see we've reached that point where you use double-talk to explain away your mistakes. I win!

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    72. In other words, you can't justify your assumption that I was referring to a specific bill.

      Unless you have something of substance to add, I win again. Thanks for playing.

      Delete
  3. So, everyone who abandons racist labels is a "bitch"? They can either be pigheaded, self-destructive morons by keeping the name, or they're "pussies" by simply changing it.

    There's a difference between "weak" and "reasonable". Your failure to understand that speaks volumes about your self-perception.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just for fun, let’s see if we can figure out how liberals must behave in order to avoid William’s scathing criticism.

    From this thread: “This is just another liberal whine about something that isn't real ... just something made up in their heads by their tiny little brains and trying to force it into the American lifestyle in order to show themselves that they have some kind of importance.”

    Previously: “The interesting thing about this situation is that the NBA knew of Silver's racism.”
    And: “There was no harm done, other than to the many liberals who expressed such phoney disgust over comments he made and just seem to forget that he's been that way since day 1.”
    http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html

    Wikipedia: “Although often assumed to be a debate of recent origins, the local Washington, DC newspapers have published news items on the controversy many times since at least 1971, all in response to Native American individuals or organizations asking for the name to be changed.”
    And: “John F. Banzhaf III, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, cites a newspaper article from 1933 in which Marshall is quoted as saying the name was selected only to save money by not having to change the logo of the Braves, and not to honor Dietz or the Indian players.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

    Also, William’s own link proved that Marshall was an unabashed racist, so there’s no way to assert that the name was chosen as a way of honoring Native Americans.

    William, previously: “The problem is [liberals] object to racism only at certain times. I object to racism all the time. Making certain liberals hypocrites. So I have every reason to claim hypocrisy by certain liberals.”

    So, William complained that liberals didn’t protest Sterling’s ownership over a lawsuit which was never a widely-discussed topic in the first place. On the other hand, objections to an admittedly derogatory name which go back at least forty-three years are supposedly indicative of something “made up”. When liberals consistently object to racism, it’s just whining; when an obscure story about a then-possibly racist NBA owner isn’t the source of outrage, that shows “hypocrisy”.

    It almost makes one wonder if a lack of outrage over the Redskins name wouldn’t be an example of how liberals only object to racism “at certain times”, doesn’t it? No, surely William wouldn't put liberals into such a no-win situation, as fair and rational as he is. Note the sarcasm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some additional gems from the Wikipedia article;
      “The origin of the word "redskin" is debated. Some scholars say that it was coined by early settlers in reference to the skin tone of Native Americans, while others say it referred to the color of the body paint used by certain tribes.”

      So much for William’s assertion of fact that it referred to body paint.

      “Two weeks later, Dave McKenna of Deadspin reported that the Redskins' "full-blooded American Inuit chief" was "neither a full-blooded American Inuit nor a chief in any formal sense," and "Chief" was only a nickname. The only documentation McKenna found that referred to Dodson as "Chief" was on a list of AKAs from court records related to "theft, paternity, and domestic violence matters." (The same records say Dodson's middle name is "Dallas.") McKenna quotes Kelly Eningowuk, executive director of the Inuit Circumpolar Council-Alaska, who says that neither "Chief" nor "Indian" are terms used by Alaska's native peoples in self-description. She said the pow wows Dodson claims to have attended would be irrelevant to his supposed Inuit ancestry.”

      And, so much for William’s only evidence of Native American support for the name.

      “Supporters note that three predominantly Native American high schools use the name Redskins for their sports teams, suggesting that it can be acceptable.[204]However, the principal of one of these, Red Mesa High School in Teec Nos Pos, Arizona, said that use of the word outside American Indian communities should be avoided because it could perpetuate “the legacy of negativity that the term has created.””

      Finally, William’s argument that the use of “Redskins” by Native American high schools somehow justifies others to use the term goes up in flames.

      So, upon further analysis, there’s simply no way to say that anyone is acting irrationally by opposing the name. There’s a perfectly justifiable case for saying that the name “Redskins” is racist, and William chastises liberals who don’t always object to racism. Yet, liberals are somehow wrong for wanting the name to be changed, because William personally wants to believe that the name is not racist.

      It would seem that the mystery of what liberals are supposed to do to placate the almighty judgment of William continues. Again, note the sarcasm.

      Delete
    2. "So much for William’s assertion of fact that it referred to body paint."

      And, so much for your fact that it is a reference to their skin color

      Delete
    3. I don't believe that I made any claim about the origin of the name, but I'm sure you'll provide a quote to support your assertion of it.

      It doesn't much matter, either way. The point has always been that it's derogatory now, which you've admitted. Even if you could argue that it once had an innocuous meaning, you can't criticize liberals for opposing what can reasonably be seen as racism, especially after you chastised liberals for not creating some national controversy regarding the lawsuit against Sterling.

      Is that really the only point of contention you could muster? How hilariously weak of you.

      Delete
    4. "I don't believe that I made any claim about the origin of the name, but I'm sure you'll provide a quote to support your assertion of it."

      If you didn't, then you are basing are basing your entire argument on what? If it isn't skin color (race relation ... as you're crying about), then what are you basing your feelings that the name should be changed? Give a logical explanation for that or admit the fact you don't have anything that "factually" attributes the name to being race related.

      "The point has always been that it's derogatory now, which you've admitted."

      I have never admitted it was derogatory. I think in YOUR opinion, YOU think it is derogatory. And, I think that the majority of Native Americans feel it is not derogatory, but rather instills a sense of pride against those who performed, one of the worlds worst, genocidal movements on their entire race of people. And is still forcing them to live in certain regions of the nation (formerly their nation) ONLY because of the race they are. It's would be good to see whose side YOU are on ... the FEW who find it offensive or the MANY who do not.
      We can go back to Eddie's first response to my first comment, also, to support my stance: " IOW: People who's opinions we don't have to be reminded matter. (Although I'd submit that they'd have far LESS of a reason to find it offensive, not that this would matter to the powers that be.)".
      See? Even HE admits that it all depends on the number of people being offended for the argument, both of you are making, to work and that the government that exterminated them tells you so. Since this argument started out with around a couple thousand NATIVE AMERICANS, then, obviously, by Eddie's standard ... if there aren't enough ACTUAL involved people in the situation, then it doesn't need to be addressed. Thank you, Eddie, for that admission in your very first post. So, if you aren't Native American, then you have no fight in this and your opinion means nothing related to WHO finds it offensive and who doesn't. As I said in my second post, you're letting the government (who performed genocide on the Native Americans) TELL you that the word that invokes pride in the very race that they exterminated is a bad word. Now, not only do the Native Americans have their lives and land taken from them, but now their language is being controlled by the ones who exterminated them. What they consider a source of pride is now determined (by the government that exterminated them) to be a bad word. Ok, at least I know what side of this case you are on.

      "especially after you chastised liberals for not creating some national controversy regarding the lawsuit against Sterling."

      So we have liberals who ignored racism (before it became popular) now trying to make up for lost time by supporting (and creating) racist situations to change, in order to make themselves look good to the voting public. Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that. How long has it been known that Sterling was a racist? How long have the Redskins been called the Redskins? NOW you want to cry about something being racism? Yeah, answer those 2 questions and I'll have my answer.

      Delete
    5. "I don't believe that I made any claim about the origin of the name, but I'm sure you'll provide a quote to support your assertion of it."

      This was you, wasn't it?: "Not according to the facts. The team was named after a coach, not a boxer.". http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/09/hey-washington-change-your-damn-name.html?showComment=1412867520241#c1538533407044202063
      Should I ask for an apology, or will you offer one? Do you want to act liberal or conservative in this situation? Ah the choices one must make in life.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    6. "If you didn't, then you are basing are basing your entire argument on what?"

      On the offensiveness of the name, as stated numerous times. And thanks for admitting that you lied when you claimed that I made such an assertion, and that it was just you making assumptions.

      "Give a logical explanation for that or admit the fact you don't have anything that "factually" attributes the name to being race related."

      So, now you're trying to claim that we're not even talking about Native Americans, or what? It's race-related, according to your previous posts.

      "I have never admitted it was derogatory."

      Liar: "The the word was changed (by a very, very small group of people) to mean something derogatory."
      Since the word currently means something derogatory, by your own comment, then it is derogatory.

      "And, I think that the majority of Native Americans feel it is not derogatory, but rather instills a sense of pride against those who performed, one of the worlds worst, genocidal movements on their entire race of people."

      Sadly, you have no evidence for your belief.

      "As I said in my second post, you're letting the government (who performed genocide on the Native Americans) TELL you that the word that invokes pride in the very race that they exterminated is a bad word."

      You have yet to explain how my position relies on government influence.

      "So we have liberals who ignored racism (before it became popular) now trying to make up for lost time by supporting (and creating) racist situations to change, in order to make themselves look good to the voting public."

      Wait, so jumping to conclusions about legal charges isn't "creating" a racist situation? How do you figure that? Also, my link makes it very clear that objections to the Redskins name go back to at least 1971, so nobody is now "creating" any sort of racist situation. Again, if you want liberals to "always" object to racism, then you can't judge them just because you twist yourself into knots to believe that something isn't racism. You'll just have to get over it.

      "Should I ask for an apology, or will you offer one?"

      Me: "So much for William’s assertion of fact that it referred to body paint."
      You: "And, so much for your fact that it is a reference to their skin color"
      Me: "I don't believe that I made any claim about the origin of the name, but I'm sure you'll provide a quote to support your assertion of it."
      We were talking about the Redskins, not the Browns. You even responded to that same quote in your previous post while talking about the Redskins, but eight minutes later you somehow forgot that in order to claim that it was in reference to a completely different team (and certainly not the "entire argument" as you previously said). So, you can ask for an apology, but you would look like even more of a moron for doing so.

      Delete
    7. "We were talking about the Redskins, not the Browns."

      You: "It's not as if "Redskins" is actually innocuous, and the reaction is based on a misunderstanding. It's clearly offensive, while "Browns" has never been interpreted as being racial in origin.".

      "Liar:"

      I debunked that lie long ago. If you continue to use that statement to base that on, then you would be considered a liar yourself. Since I obviously was referring to the "very, very small group" of people who consider it derogatory, not my own admission.

      "Sadly, you have no evidence for your belief."

      Sadly, for you, I have already brought that evidence. You denied that a small group of Native Americans have a voice in this, for whatever reason (that you could never explain). Remember, you keep crying about my link to the 700 that don't find the name disparaging.

      "You have yet to explain how my position relies on government influence."

      YOU have yet to explain what your position relies on. Other than your own feelings that the word is disparaging. So, explain yourself or STFU.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    8. "You: "It's not as if "Redskins" is actually innocuous, and the reaction is based on a misunderstanding. It's clearly offensive, while "Browns" has never been interpreted as being racial in origin."."

      How does that change the context that I already demonstrated? The specific comment that you addressed was about the Redskins, and your new quote is separate from that exchange.

      "I debunked that lie long ago."

      You can't change the meanings of words, William. Sorry. Your statement clearly admits that the term is derogatory, even if you think that it shouldn't be.

      "Since I obviously was referring to the "very, very small group" of people who consider it derogatory, not my own admission."

      No, you referred to the very small group of people who changed the word to something derogatory. Again, dictionaries define it as offensive, so it's not a question of a handful of people who merely believe that to be true.

      "Sadly, for you, I have already brought that evidence."

      Your phony "chief" and the seven hundred Native Americans that he claimed to speak for don't constitute a majority. Meanwhile, major Native American tribes have sued to have the name changed. Do the math.

      "YOU have yet to explain what your position relies on."

      Read my link. Not only is it offensive by definition, but there are multiple arguments to show how the name is racist. By the way, falsely claiming that I haven't explained my position doesn't excuse you from your obligation to explain your accusations. If you can't say how the government supposedly influenced my position, then you just got caught lying again.

      Delete
    9. "How does that change the context that I already demonstrated?"

      You claimed that "Redskins" is based on race. You then denied you made that claim. What are you crying about?

      " Your statement clearly admits that the term is derogatory, even if you think that it shouldn't be."

      But "I" never admit it is derogatory. Which is what you keep saying. That makes you a liar.

      "Again, dictionaries define it as offensive, so it's not a question of a handful of people who merely believe that to be true."

      And, the owners of those "handful" of dictionaries are WHO? So, it IS a question of just a "handful" of people. How many Native Americans were originally involved in the complaint against the Washington Redskins?
      Of course, if you rely on the issue becoming a political thing then, naturally, you're going to be able to find any number of nutcases who want to join only some bandwagons, depending on their feeelings at the time and not others with similar examples. Nothing hypocritical or insincere about those actions.

      This was you, earlier: "Not according to the facts. The team was named after a coach, not a boxer."
      Here's from wikipedia on the ORIGIN of the Redskins name: " Some accounts state that the name "Redskins" was chosen to honor William "Lone Star" Dietz, who began coaching in 1933, because his mother was Sioux. Dietz's true heritage has been questioned by some scholars, citing a birth certificate and census records that his parents were white.".
      So, it turns out, that the team got its name from a honored COACH. So, do you still support the Cleveland name?

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    10. "You claimed that "Redskins" is based on race. You then denied you made that claim."

      What do you think the term refers to, if not race? It's a term for Native Americans, no matter what the origin of the term was. So, again, how does this change the context that I provided? You jumped from "Redskins" to "Browns" within eight minutes, and you can't seem to explain your confusion.

      "But "I" never admit it is derogatory."

      Yes, you did, because you said that was its meaning. That goes beyond your opinion, so whether you want to view the term that way or not is irrelevant to that.

      "And, the owners of those "handful" of dictionaries are WHO?"

      So you believe that the term isn't really offensive, but the people who publish dictionaries are all saying otherwise, for some reason? I'd love to hear how and why you think that's happening.

      "How many Native Americans were originally involved in the complaint against the Washington Redskins?"

      How would that be relevant to current discussions of changing the name?

      "Of course, if you rely on the issue becoming a political thing then, naturally, you're going to be able to find any number of nutcases who want to join only some bandwagons, depending on their feeelings at the time and not others with similar examples."

      And now, you believe that 1.2 million Native Americans are "nutcases". Classic.

      "So, it turns out, that the team got its name from a honored COACH."

      Also from earlier: “John F. Banzhaf III, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, cites a newspaper article from 1933 in which Marshall is quoted as saying the name was selected only to save money by not having to change the logo of the Braves, and not to honor Dietz or the Indian players.”
      Your claim was debunked ahead of time, as if your admission of the birth certificate and census records didn't also undermine your claim. I find it amusing that "some accounts" magically becomes "it turns out" just because you desperately hope for something to be true.

      Delete
    11. "How would that be relevant to current discussions of changing the name?"

      Dodging the question? That's very convenient to don't think the number of people involved actually matter. But, since you've already implied a mere 700 Native Americans isn't enough to give credence to.

      "And now, you believe that 1.2 million Native Americans are "nutcases". Classic."

      No, the nutcases are the liberals and others who suddenly feel offended by a word. Where they weren't back in ... any other point of time that Redskins has been used.
      I take it you're not a sports guy. If you were, then you'd have known what joining a "bandwagon" means. And wouldn't make such obviously stupid statements.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    12. "Dodging the question? That's very convenient to don't think the number of people involved actually matter."

      You'd have to explain how it does matter. If people want the name changed now, it doesn't really make any difference how many people supported that position previously. We're talking about changing things now, not then.

      "But, since you've already implied a mere 700 Native Americans isn't enough to give credence to."

      Your "chief" has no credibility, but 700 people isn't a majority even if he did. You claimed to believe that most Native Americans support your view, while your number falls a little short of 1.46 million.

      "No, the nutcases are the liberals and others who suddenly feel offended by a word."

      As if words can't be offensive? That's hilarious, coming from someone who's been ranting about "Browns". You'll also have to figure out if liberals are supposed to ever speak out about an issue or not. When they do, you pretend that it's just an act performed to seem relevant, but then you want to see liberals objecting to everything in order to satisfy your random demands.

      By the way "others" would obviously include Native Americans.

      "I take it you're not a sports guy."

      I knew that the Browns weren't named after Joe Louis. You didn't. Try again?

      By the way, I notice that you neglected to expand on your theory regarding dictionary publishers. You also failed to explain why you were fishing for an apology, when you obviously applied my comment to the wrong topic. Why do you forget things so easily?

      Delete
    13. " If people want the name changed now, it doesn't really make any difference how many people supported that position previously. "

      You mean if a few people want it changed? I take it that you feel the many people who don't want it changed or don't care one-way-or-the-other are inconsequential? Are you saying the 1 million (your unproved number) has more say than the remaining 315 million? I think the actual number complaining is only a couple thousand or so. That is what you base your whine on? That .3% can decide what should be done over the other 97%?

      "You claimed to believe that most Native Americans support your view, while your number falls a little short of 1.46 million."

      IMHO your number includes the whiny liberals and not just Native Americans. Bring evidence to support your claim that 1.2 million Native Americans want it changed.

      "As if words can't be offensive?"

      Apparently you think so.

      "By the way "others" would obviously include Native Americans."

      No, it would not.

      "I knew that the Browns weren't named after Joe Louis. You didn't. Try again?"

      You now know that the Redskins are named after William "Lone Star" Dietz, A Native American coach. So quit your whining about the name, since teams named after coaches is acceptable (to you) even if it is a racist word (like "Browns").

      ROTFLMAO

      Aha, you wanted substance ... you got it. I think you'd better go back to the other, since you obviously get your ars kicked when trying to bring substance.

      Delete
    14. "I take it that you feel the many people who don't want it changed or don't care one-way-or-the-other are inconsequential?"

      What "many people" who don't want it changed? And why would people who don't care be factored into anything? You want to pretend that they automatically count towards your side, but there's no way for you to justify that premise.

      "Are you saying the 1 million (your unproved number) has more say than the remaining 315 million?"

      You: "So, if you aren't Native American, then you have no fight in this and your opinion means nothing related to WHO finds it offensive and who doesn't."
      So, why would 315 million people matter, according to you?

      Also, the 1.2 million Native Americans figure comes from your link. You should read what you post as evidence.

      "That .3% can decide what should be done over the other 97%?"

      First off, those two numbers add up to 97.3%. You meant "99.7%". And if people don't care, then nothing is being decided "over" them.

      "IMHO your number includes the whiny liberals and not just Native Americans."

      Are those the same "whiny" liberals that you wanted to see railing against someone over assumed guilt in a lawsuit? Funny how "whiny" only applies when you find people's arguments inconvenient to your viewpoint, isn't it? And, yet again, you need to read your own links. You can't possibly imagine how stupid you look by continuing to dispute figures taken from your own evidence.

      "Apparently you think so."

      Apparently, so do you, since you want to argue that "Browns" is "racist".

      "No, it would not."

      According to your own posts, it would. Who else besides "whiny liberals" and Native Americans have you mentioned as opposing the name?

      "You now know that the Redskins are named after William "Lone Star" Dietz, A Native American coach."

      Not according to Marshall, sorry, and you yourself mentioned two genuine reasons to doubt that claim of Native American heritage. You ignore all evidence which contradicts your cherished articles of faith. That doesn't reflect well on you.

      "Aha, you wanted substance ... you got it."

      I'm sure that's the best that you can do, but it's still nothing substantial. The term refers to intelligent arguments, not merely the number of words that you vomit out.

      Delete
    15. "Also, the 1.2 million Native Americans figure comes from your link. You should read what you post as evidence."

      NONE of the links I brought say that 1.2 million Native Americans support changing the team name from Redskins to anything else. If you even try to say any of those links say that, then you are woefully lying with twisted meanings of what is ACTUALLY said in those links. But, being the typical liberal that you are, I expect you to defend your lies and promote them as truth. Good luck with that.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    16. "If you even try to say any of those links say that, then you are woefully lying with twisted meanings of what is ACTUALLY said in those links."

      How so? Be specific.

      Delete
    17. Read the link. YOU are the one claiming that 1.2 million Native Americans ARE supporting the name change. I just don't see that link saying that. Maybe you're taking some very LIBERAL assumptions?


      Wow! You really do have to have the last word, huh? You waited 10 minutes to reply... then aren't even familiar with the link you make the claims with.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    18. I'm familiar with the link. I'm asking for your explanation of how there's some "twisted meanings" in anything I've said.

      So, what is it you see that is supposedly being "twisted"? Be specific.

      Delete
    19. Prove your claim or stop making it. My link does NOT say what you say it does. It is up to YOU to prove what YOU say, not me. Don't worry, though, I don't expect you to prove what you say, it isn't in your nature to do that sort of thing.
      Now, hurry up so you can be the last to post. I'd hate to see anyone other than you get the last word in. Are liberals so concerned about their impression on others that they can't let someone else have the last word? You people are truly a funny people.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    20. "My link does NOT say what you say it does."

      According to you, it does. That's exactly why you wouldn't answer my question, I'm willing to bet.

      "Are liberals so concerned about their impression on others that they can't let someone else have the last word?"

      Not when your last word is dishonest and hypocritical, no. That deserves a response, whether you like it or not.

      Delete