Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, May 22, 2014

Fifty senators, all members of the Democratic caucus, are urging the National Football League to rename Washington, D.C.'s football team. In a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, 49 senators said that the team's name, the Washington Redskins, amounts to a "racial slur." "The Washington, D.C. football team is on the wrong side of history," said the letter, spearheaded by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada. "What message does it send to punish slurs against African Americans while endorsing slurs against Native Americans?"

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Call it the "Politicians", then we'll see what a real "Cluster F..." really is.

#1 | Posted by bat4255 at 2014-05-22 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I can remember when there was a big push to rename the Atlanta Braves in the late '80s when they were the worst baseball team in the league. Then came the miracle decade for the Braves -- the '90s -- and suddenly the Indians were proud of the name.

Maybe the Redskins just need to win a couple of superbowls and this tempest in a teapot will be over. And maybe white people should stay out of it.

#7 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-22 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Washington Bucks?

C'mon. It worked in Milwaukee.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-22 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Senate shouldn't be asking the NFL to change the name. It should be passing a law that makes it clear that the term "Redskins" is a slur that will not be given trademark protection under our law. The name will be changed the second that happens, because Dan Snyder and the NFL will lose millions from not being able to protect the mark.

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-22 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Does anyone else remember when Hanoi Jane was married to Ted Turner and she tried to get the Braves fans to do the tomohawk chop palm down? What a joke. She failed miserably, of course. I lived in Kennesaw then and I remember what a laughing stock she was with that.

#10 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-22 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Washington Cronies would be perfect.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-22 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

. It should be passing a law that makes it clear that the term "Redskins" is a slur that will not be given trademark protection under our law.

THought police laws. Sure enact that. Soon it won't be long that you can't call the president an idiot, editorial cartoonists will slowly have their tools taken away from them, priests can't be called pedophiles -- all names worse than "redskin".

You love the idea of the thought police, don't you, rcade?

#12 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-22 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah nothing racist about the name Redskins.

It was just the name selected by the team owner George Preston Marshall, who fought segregation tooth and nail and was the last owner to hold out against black players on his team... nothing racist about that...

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-22 09:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah nothing racist about the name Redskins.

So don't patronize the team or buy their merchandise if the name bugs you, speaksoftly.

duh

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-22 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goatman: That "thought police" dig is asinine. You should put more thought into your comments before you hit Publish.

A trademark is a federally granted monopoly. When you are granted this monopoly, the government enforces it for you. In order to be given this monopoly, you must follow a large number of rules. One of them is that your mark cannot be disparaging to a race, ethnicity, religion or other group. This has been a part of trademark law since the Lanham Act of 1946.

This is about commerce, not about speech. Disallowing a Redskins trademark would not prevent Washington's team from using it. It would just remove the U.S. government's sanction and enforcement of the name as a trademark.

The Redskins already should have lost the mark, just as many others who registered slurs and disparaging language could not get marks. But they had friends in D.C., as you'd expect given the team's hometown.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-22 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"Goatman: That "thought police" dig is asinine. You should put more thought into your comments before you hit Publish."

Wise advice.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-22 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"It should be passing a law that makes it clear that the term "Redskins" is a slur that will not be given trademark protection under our law."
THought police laws. Sure enact that. Soon it won't be long that you can't call the president an idiot, editorial cartoonists will slowly have their tools taken away from them, priests can't be called pedophiles -- all names worse than "redskin".
You love the idea of the thought police, don't you, rcade?
#12 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-22 09:54 PM

Wait, you are advocating for the team name Idiots or Tools?

Actually, brilliant concept.

#17 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-22 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wait, you are advocating for the team name Idiots or Tools?

I wasn't (but you aren't exactly known for your logic, redlightrobot), but actually I don't care what their name is. If people don't like the name of the team, don't go to the games. Don't buy their merchandise.

It's that simple and requires no government intervention.

#19 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-22 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#15 - You have a good point Rcade, albeit so many laws out there it is hard to know them all. It just seems that it is a non-issue (at least for senators) given the vast number of far more important issues facing our country.

#20 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-22 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Add to that the fact the Redskins were originally the Boston Braves before George Preston Marshall's partners, who were co-owners of the team, got out after the first year. Once they left, he re-named them the Redskins.

Those who are fans of the Redskins have him to thank for all of the Cowboys fans who live in the DC area. That's Marshall's legacy from being the last NFL owner to integrate. Ask any 100 African-Americans who live in and around the beltway, and you'll find a substantial number of them to be Cowboys fans.

Most of this generation's African-American Cowboys fans in DC may not know why they root for Dallas despite never having been to Texas, but their parents surely remember that the Cowboys were drafting some of the best African-American athletes of the early 60s while Marshall was passing out Confederate flags to his fans. There were no other NFL teams in the south at that time, and virtually overnight Dallas became "America's Team."

#21 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-05-22 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It's that simple and requires no government intervention.

The act of granting the trademark and allowing it to be renewed every 10 years *is* government intervention.

#22 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-22 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

The act of granting the trademark and allowing it to be renewed every 10 years *is* government intervention.

Enacting a trademark deemed offensive is different. Don't be obtuse.

Who is to say it is offensive and worthy of OT (offensive trademark)? Congress? Do you really want to give your legislators that kind of power to trample first amendment rights, rcade? I don't

#23 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-22 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too bad it had to come to this. Snyder had his chance to do the right thing.

#24 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-05-22 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

IMHO they should change their name to "the legacies".

Heck they can keep selling most of the same trinkets.

#25 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-22 10:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Senate must have solved ALL our problems to get involved in this unimportant and stupid issue LOL Who cares...NOT ME If there was ever a truly "free market issue" this is the one.

#26 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-05-22 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

With Republicans filibustering everything else, there's not much the Senate can do.

#27 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-05-22 11:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

these IDIOTS are more concerned with this stupid silliness than the people who volunteer and risk their lives....and OF COURSE these are lousy punk democrats.....figures..

freebeacon.com

#28 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-22 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

that's right DCTEX>.not ,much the low life dems can do but BLOCK accountability measures for OBAMAS people in the VA...

#29 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-22 11:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

can't wait for one of 'you people' to start lecturing and blowing about gop blocking stuff.....

hypocrites.

#30 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-22 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

oh and the vote in the house??

The bill passed in the House yesterday 390 to 33.

#31 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-22 11:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

The PC police are at it again taking freedom, intruding, censoring, and applying their tyrannical methods just as they did in the Communist Party controlled Soviet Union. Political Correctness was the method they used to establish Party line doctrine that controlled culture and beliefs. Pure propaganda of control. en.wikipedia.org

#32 | Posted by Robson at 2014-05-22 11:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

With Republicans filibustering everything else, there's not much the Senate can do.

#27 | POSTED BY DCTEXAN

IOW, someone else's fault. You know, if you proggies hadn't overplayed that hand when y'all had both the senate and HoR and the WH, it might be meaningful. And it's especially asinine and meaningless to apply to to hypotheticals that haven't even happened! "WAAAH! Those wascally Wepublicans will filibuster, so we aren't going to do anything!" signed, da Dems

Now, five years later it's just as big of a giant *yawn* as "Bush's fault".

Isn't it time to come up with some new material? And if you can't, don't put the blame (filibuster in this case) on something that hasn't happened. You proggies are pitiful

#33 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-22 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

One of them is that
your mark cannot be disparaging to a
race, ethnicity, religion or other group.
This has been a part of trademark law
since the Lanham Act of 1946.

#15| POSTED BY RCADE

They've been the Washington Redskins since 1937. Could be some grandfathering involved...

#34 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-22 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

One of them is that
your mark cannot be disparaging to a
race, ethnicity, religion or other group.

Who decides that? Congress? You trust them to do the right thing? Even if the republicans were in full control (as the dems were when the zero came into office) and they decide that certain things can't be said about the president because it is disparaging?

Be careful what you wish for, rcade.

LOL

#35 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-23 12:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ban those racist US Indianhead pennies and buffalo nickles! Morons...

#36 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-05-23 12:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Indian motorcycles....Redskin peanuts...Horrors!

#37 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-05-23 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ban those racist US Indianhead pennies and buffalo nickles! Morons.

At least Americans had the sense not to use the Sacagawea dollars.

#38 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-23 12:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

At least Americans had the sense not to use the Sacagawea dollars.

Posted by goatman

So....when is the Obama dollar to be printed? In Barack We Trust..

#39 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-05-23 01:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

rcade, when was the last time you heard anyone and I mean anyone call a native american a redskin and mean it as a slur. I have heard the word ni**er plenty in my life but never the word redskin.

But since you are trying to ban offensive nicknames try this on for size. As a Christian having to hear college's use terms like blue devils, sun devils, etc. is offensive to my Christian beliefs. So when are you gonna get out there and tell Duke, Arizona and other colleges with offensive nicknames to Christians to change their names?

#40 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-05-23 02:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

"This is about commerce, not about speech."

Then we can eliminate the 'n-word' from all rap songs because they are sold and such is commerce?

#41 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-23 02:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

rcade, when was the last time you heard anyone and I mean anyone call a native american a redskin and mean it as a slur. I have heard the word ni**er plenty in my life but never the word redskin.

#40 | Posted by mcmlcxx

No one uses "----" as a racist slur anymore but that doesn't mean it's not offensive. Words have history. So do teams. And the history of the redsk*ns is they were created by one of the most racist owners in sports history, if you care to look it up.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 02:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'd like to ask all of those who defend the use of the Redskins nickname to do the following:

Every time you refer to Native Americans, call them Redskins. Do it every time. Make sure to do it in front of everyone -- kids, relatives, friends, strangers, clergy, other Redskins, co-workers, on video for posterity -- really own it.

Then come back here and tell us how much you support the Redskins nickname after that. Be sure to describe how no one even noticed your use of the word, "Redskin," because it's so interchangeable with, "Indian" or "Native American."

#43 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-05-23 07:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

rcade, when was the last time you heard anyone and I mean anyone call a native american a redskin and mean it as a slur.

It doesn't matter whether I heard it or not. Some Native Americans say it happens to them. I certainly heard and read plenty of "Scalp the Indians" stuff at pep rallies and games when my school played a team with an Indian-themed mascot. Go to a Cleveland Indians game and you'll see idiots dressed in redface as Chief Wahoo. Tell me that isn't offensive as hell.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-23 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you really want to give your legislators that kind of power to trample first amendment rights, rcade? I don't

Once again, you're not understanding the issue at all. There is no First Amendment right to name your company anything you like *and* get federal government protection for that name. Stop making the false association between trademark rights and free speech. Trademark is about commerce, not speech.

#45 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-23 08:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"Too bad it had to come to this. Snyder had his chance to do the right thing."

I agree. These owners are such entitled jerks. It's been an issue for some time now and Snyder could have just changed the name and been gracious about it. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the owner could have shown some class and just change the name. Is it that big of a deal? don't tell me it's about money either.....I think they could have made a clever change that would have resulted in a big payday for the franchise.

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-23 08:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"As a Christian having to hear college's use terms like blue devils, sun devils, etc. is offensive to my Christian beliefs."

Analogous? Not really. Redskins is not simply offensive to someone's beliefs; it names a group of people using a derogatory term (slur). See the comment about the trademark law. Blue Devils doesn't count. And "devil" is also an animal term; see Tasmanian...

#47 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-23 08:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

As a Christian having to hear college's use terms like blue devils, sun devils, etc. is offensive to my Christian beliefs.

Unless you are Satan or one of Satan's legions, I fail to see how you are personally insulted by those mascots.

#48 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-23 09:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Washington Americans is a name being bandied about. They would not have to change logos.

Of course, Washing Gridlock and Washington Shut Down are also in play.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-23 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Senate shouldn't be asking the NFL to change the name. It should be passing a law that makes it clear that the term "Redskins" is a slur that will not be given trademark protection under our law.
#9 | Posted by rcade

First you say something that is in tune with ideals of what it is to be American and then the very next sentence you cancel that with an un-American remark. It is un-American to use the government to force a group to do anything that pits one group against another when their is nothing illegal going on! This goes a long way in describing how totalitarianism is creeping into our government. It's obvious that the team made a good case of why they are not changing the name. I think soon with enough public pressure they will change their name, without public pressure, they will not change it. This is a legitimate argument but does not belong in our Federal Government. Idiotic moves like this (Harry Reid) only serve to divide us even more.

#50 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It is un-American to use the government to force a group to do anything that pits one group against another when their is nothing illegal going on!"

I dare anyone to try and figure out what this means without getting a migraine.

#51 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

"As a Christian having to hear college's use terms like blue devils, sun devils, etc. is offensive to my Christian beliefs."

Analogous? Not really. Redskins is not simply offensive to someone's beliefs; it names a group of people using a derogatory term (slur). See the comment about the trademark law. Blue Devils doesn't count. And "devil" is also an animal term; see Tasmanian...

#47 | Posted by pragmatist

I agree with you. It's not the same unless it was named the "White Devils" and Jay-Z owned the team.

I seems I've always thought that the name was derogatory toward Native Americans. If I were involved with the team, my vote would be to change the name. I think it was when I got into college (80's) and started meeting people from different cultures around the world that it occurred to me that this name Redskins was not quite right. I'll bet they wish they changed the name when this debate started years ago.

#52 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It is un-American to use the government to force a group to do anything that pits one group against another when their is nothing illegal going on!"

I dare anyone to try and figure out what this means without getting a migraine.
#51 | Posted by Sully

Proof that the Left has a hard time with the meaning of a word like "Freedom".

#53 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It is un-American to use the government to force a group to do anything that pits one group against another when their is nothing illegal going on!"

I dare anyone to try and figure out what this means without getting a migraine.
#51 | Posted by Sully

Proof that the Left has a hard time with the meaning of a word like "Freedom".

#53 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

You think the word "freedom" is in that sentence? Interesting....

#54 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It is un-American to use the government to force a group to do anything that pits one group against another when their is nothing illegal going on!"

I dare anyone to try and figure out what this means without getting a migraine.
#51 | Posted by Sully

Proof that the Left has a hard time with the meaning of a word like "Freedom".

#53 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

You think the word "freedom" is in that sentence? Interesting....

#55 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

"This goes a long way in describing how totalitarianism is creeping into our government."

Well, it's about time the Senate addressed a MAJOR problem like this horrible slur on our Indian friends. Instead, they seem to be wasting all their time with bashing phoney scandals like the V.A secret lists, Benghazi, IRS targeting and others where there isn't even a "smidgen" of corruption. You KNOW it's critical when you can get fifty democrats to all vote to change the name of a football team. A "bravo-zulu" to them and congratulations to all our little "progress" buddies for paying attention to this very troubling issue!

By the way, LastAmerican, that totalitarianism isn't "creeping," it's FLOODING into our government. Get ready also, based on what I read from RCade, if he doesn't get the LAW he wants from the Senate, he might even go so far as to ban this terrible "R" word from the DR. We might be singing, "Hail to the "R" words, hail victory....." from now on.

#56 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

#56 | Posted by jestgettinalong

I agree that the "creeping" is light.

Banning the "R" word on the Retort? That's RCade's choice. He owns the place and he can make any rule he wants. But with great powers comes... oh never mind.

#58 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Stop making the false
association between trademark rights
and free speech. Trademark is about
commerce, not speech.

#45| POSTED BY RCADE

Trademarks are about protecting private property. One of the few legitimate functions of government.

Telling an individual or company that the government won't offer said protection of private property because the government finds something about the private property to be offensive, is not a legitimate function of government.

#59 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-23 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I seems I've always thought that the name was derogatory toward Native Americans.

Then you agree that Redskins should not be a federally registered trademark, since the law since the 1930s has been that words which are derogatory to groups cannot be registered. Many others sought trademarks in slurs and were denied. Why should Washington's NFL team get to break this rule?

#60 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-23 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I seems I've always thought that the name was derogatory toward Native Americans.

Then you agree that Redskins should not be a federally registered trademark, since the law since the 1930s has been that words which are derogatory to groups cannot be registered. Many others sought trademarks in slurs and were denied. Why should Washington's NFL team get to break this rule?

#60 | Posted by rcade

No, I still don't agree. The Feds should have denied the trademark in 1932 when they made trademark application. Too late now (82 years! Are you joking?). The law applies to the approval process only. I agree with the law, but not the application of it in this case. The Feds have no place in this argument.

(Harry Reid is an idiot and any chance to poke at this enemy of America is always taken advantage of.)

#62 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Then you agree that Redskins should
not be a federally registered
trademark, since the law since the
1930s has been that words which are
derogatory to groups cannot be
registered. Many others sought
trademarks in slurs and were denied.
Why should Washington's NFL team
get to break this rule?

#60| POSTED BY RCADE

The 1930's or 1946 which you stated up thread? The date difference is significant to your trademark dispute in this particular case.

#63 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-23 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm also not sure if you are aware of the fact that this strategy has already been tried and the Redskins won in court.

#64 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-23 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Congress will involve themselves in just about anything to avoid tackling the real problems our country faces.

#65 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-23 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm also not sure if you are aware of the fact that this strategy has already been tried and the Redskins won in court.
#64 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-23 11:52 AM

You mean to say that the Native American community lost their suit to Redskins?

#66 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-23 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

You mean to say that the Native American community lost their suit to Redskins?
#66 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT

Well 7 of them anyway and there is another ongoing case that seems destined to the same fate.

legaltimes.typepad.com
www.forbes.com
www.cnn.com
en.wikipedia.org

#67 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-23 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

My opinion is that this is a problem for the NFL to solve for themselves. They should figure up the cost of changing the name and each owner pays a percentage. That would be fait if I were part of the NFL, but I'm not so all I have is an opinion.

#68 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, I still don't agree. The Feds should have denied the trademark in 1932 when they made trademark application. Too late now (82 years! Are you joking?).
#62 | Posted by LastAmerican

It's called CORRECTING A MISTAKE. The feds also should have outlawed slavery when the nation was founded. Would you have told the slaves "too late now, we already approved slavery! Can't change it now!"

#69 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#61 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know where the quote you were responding to came from but I have literally never voted for a Democrat for POTUS. So that tells you how much that comment was worth.

I do find it amusing that you would have the balls to call someone else stupid though. The next rational thought you post here will be the first.

#70 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

It's called CORRECTING A MISTAKE. The feds also should have outlawed slavery when the nation was founded. Would you have told the slaves "too late now, we already approved slavery! Can't change it now!"

#69 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Actually the laws says it would have had to of been considered derogatory/offensive at the time the trademark was granted not whether it is deemed derogatory/offensive today.

#71 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-23 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The next rational thought you post here will be the first."

Not to be hyperbolic, but this is your best line ever.

#72 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-23 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

#70 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually I voted for Kerry in '04 because the party of morons had put a traitor in office.

I've still voted for more indies and even Republicans than Democrats.

#73 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is an obnoxious issue. I'd think the people of DC would have said "enough" by now. Just change the friggin name. Whining about free speech and the First Amendment totally misses the point that this is a gratuitously obnoxious name with no historic signifigance to that team or that area beyond in the most vague and general sense.

#74 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-05-23 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#74 | Posted by moder8

That's true but the football audience is a generally a macho conservative crowd, who are already angry that they're not allowed to be as racist homophobic and dominant as they once were. They fear any change and Fox tells them every day that the horrible libs are coming to ruin their lives. So something as sensible as getting rid of this racist team name becomes a moral stand against the creeping liberal totalitarian state in their fox-addled minds.

It's just like with environmental protection - it's a good thing to do, but LIBS want to do it, therefore all true red blooded american conservatives should oppose it, since their plutocrat propaganda sources have convinced them that anything libs want is EVIL!

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#75

Jesus Christ, what a rant.

#76 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-23 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ok, folks all this racially offensive debate aside. When this came up quite a while ago I did a little research myself and there are a lot of posts and articles since that time.

Learn a little bit about why the team was named that way and the origin of the name as well as the term 'Redskin'. Also the team was not formed and named in Washington DC but BOSTON and it was renamed by George Marshall as Speaksoftly did say, but from everything I read he thought he was honoring his "Native American" Coach (William Dietz) with retaining a Native American related name when they left the same field as the Boston Braves baseball team.

There is a lot of info out there as it turns out the evidence seems to indicate that Dietz is was not Native American as he said. But at the time everyone thought he was.

That said it doesn't appear "Redskin" was seen as offensive until the late 60s. There is evidence out there it originally originated from 'war' paint rather than skin color as well. All that said yes some Native Americans find the term offensive. I work with a couple who don't find it offensive and think it is a joke. They say let him keep paying off the tribes instead of renaming the team. They also made the comment that the Braves deal would be like naming a team the "Knights" - they seen no issue there either.

#77 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-05-23 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They also made the comment that the Braves deal would be like naming a team the "Knights" - they seen no issue there either."

Because the braves in a tribe are the warriors, and warriors are honorable? (I don't have a problem with Braves as a team name. But then, I don't really have a problem with Redskins either, but I understand why some people would and do.)

#78 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-23 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's funny how opinions change over time. I live in Georgia and remember going to the Braves games in the 80's where they had a TP in the left field stands and even had a real indian dressed up with head dress and the works. From time to time he would do a dance and beat his drum. His name was Chief Knocka Homa. Hilarious.

#79 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-23 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

don't really have a problem with Redskins either, but I understand why some people would and do.)

#78 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-23 02:20 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I have heard that even most native americans don't have a problem with it. My great grandmother was 100% indian which makes me part indian and the name doesn't bother me.

#80 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-23 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

They need to just to bite the bullet and bury the hatchet and change the name.

Make a contest out of it...be creative. Make it fun.

#81 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-23 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I will also add that the native american people have much greater problems than the name of a football team.

#82 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-23 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Go to a Cleveland Indians game and you'll see idiots dressed in redface as Chief Wahoo. Tell me that isn't offensive as hell."

OK...it's not offensive as hell. Well, obviously to YOU. You should promote ANOTHER law that would prohibit dressing up as a cowboy at Dallas Cowboy games, A leprechaun at Notre Dame games, painting yourself orange at Syracuse Orangemen games or even being a "yankee" at New York Yankee games since yankees kinda offend me as does "progressives" finding practically everything offensive these days. I know you must be in terrible pain with these issues and I feel your pain. GET OVER IT! It's probably hard for you to believe, but there ARE some bigger issues deserving attention.

#83 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"50 Senators Urge NFL to Rename Redskins"

Can't we all just decide that the name refers to the potato?

#84 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-05-23 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh crap I almost forgot his wife's name was Princess Winna a Lotta. Ted Turner was a freaking genius.

#85 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-23 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I have heard that even most native americans don't have a problem with it. My great grandmother was 100% indian which makes me part indian and the name doesn't bother me." #80 | POSTED BY DALTON

Dalton Running Mouth don't speak with forked tongue. It's true, most American Indians support the Redskin name.

www.syracuse.com

#87 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-05-23 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

It's probably hard for you to believe, but there ARE some bigger issues deserving attention.

#83 | Posted by jestgettinalong

You're right. Perhaps repubs would rather address environmental destruction... no?

#88 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't know where the quote you were responding to came from but I have literally never voted for a Democrat for POTUS."

I don't know who posted that statement TO you since so many have been dumped now, but my response wasn't to you and never meant that I thought you were even naive much less ignorant and stupid. My response was to the poster, not you, and I never intimated the way in which you voted. When the poster said, "It explains a lot of how Democrats get elected," I just said that it went beyond naivete to ignorance and stupidity. I can provide you with a lot of visual evidence to support that position if you'd like. It's all over YouTube. A great number of the Obama voters don't even know the name of his #2 or that Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing. To me, that's way beyond naivete.

#89 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dalton Running Mouth don't speak with forked tongue. It's true, most American Indians support the Redskin name.

www.syracuse.com

#87 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-05-23 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's why I said I "heard". Try to read and comprehend crisis.

#90 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-23 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

A great number of the Obama voters don't even know the name of his #2 or that Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing. To me, that's way beyond naivete.

#89 | Posted by jestgettinalong

A great number of palin voters don't know those things either.

#91 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You're right. Perhaps repubs would rather address environmental destruction... no?"

Environmental destruction...? Is that the new name for "global warming/climate change?" lemme see, you changed terror attacks at military bases to "workplace violence," foreign military actions to "overseas contingency operations," and then, of course we have, "man-made disasters." What made y'all decide to start working on renaming sports teams now? A little too much PC happenin, don't ya' think?'

#92 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

oo late now (82 years! Are you joking?).

Too late? Trademarks come up for renewal every 10 years. No one promised the Redskins they could have that as a protected registered mark forever. Since they've been fighting the USPTO since the '70s to keep the mark from being removed, they have had decades to prepare for losing it.

#93 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-23 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"A great number of palin voters don't know those things either."

There ya' go again...racism! The only people I know of that ever voted directly for Palin were those voters in Alaska when she ran for governor. You know, those Eskimos and all. Why do you assume they're ignorant or stupid. Your bigotry is showing...

#94 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93 | Posted by rcade

Ok, lets try this angle. Its not yours. You cannot have it. To hell with your inflated sensibilities. It belongs to that team and the fans of the franchise. End of story.

Countersue for court costs.

#95 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-05-23 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your bigotry is showing...

#94 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Hang on. You're saying I'm bigoted against dumb people?

Also did you know palin was on a national ticket with mccain and couldve been president?

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No one promised the Redskins they could have that as a protected registered mark forever."

Was I violating patent law and "progressives" sensitivities when I used to come back from the beach with family and tell friends we were all redskins? I gotta tell ya', RCade, I honestly believe all this is PC in chaos. There is NO WAY you'll ever stop SOME individuals from finding SOMETHING offensive in ANYTHING.

#97 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

What made y'all decide to start working on renaming sports teams now? A little too much PC happenin, don't ya' think?'

#92 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Same thing that causes any change in politics - someone with money asking representatives to change it, or representatives trying to raise money with an issue.

What made repubs all decide to require voter IDs now when there were statistically zero incidents of in-person voter fraud?

#99 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Hang on. You're saying I'm bigoted against dumb people?"

NO...I'm sayin' you're one of 'em...and you're bigoted against the Inuits, Yupiks, Inupiaq and Aluets who are native to Alaska.

"Also did you know palin was on a national ticket with mccain and couldve been president?"

Of course I knew that! I'm not a "progressive," and I also knew who would be in line after Palin. However, I said DIRECTLY voted for Palin. A vote for McCain is not a direct vote for Palin. You gonna tell me you actually voted for Biden? LOL...Besides, I didn't vote for either McCain OR Palin, I merely voted against Obama.

#100 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

It belongs to that team and the fans of the franchise. End of story.

I love people who think a sports team's traditions are more important than the right of Native Americans to be treated with respect. Hundreds of teams have changed their names to stop using these mascots. Washington will stop using its name too. It's inevitable.

#101 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-23 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#101 | POSTED BY RCADE

What do you say to the point regarding polls showing a majority of Native Americans supporting Dan Snyder's side?

#102 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-23 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What made repubs all decide to require voter IDs now when there were statistically zero incidents of in-person voter fraud?"

LOL...statistically ZERO????? Is that some more name manufacturing? Besides, if they require an ID to drive a car, receive welfare, cash a check, buy a beer, or gain entrance into an airport, why are they -------' about having one to vote? it appears to me there can be only one reason for not having one.

#103 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Besides, if they require an ID to drive a car, receive welfare, cash a check, buy a beer, or gain entrance into an airport, why are they -------' about having one to vote?

Which one of those is a protected right?

#104 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-23 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

They are treated with respect Rcade. Garbage like this only proves that we arent moving forward. You're in the extreme minority on this one. They dont have a case. Unfortunately, you may be right. "Culture shift" is becoming an increasingly acceptable and utilized tool for activist judges to disregard the law in favor of opinion.

Dont get me wrong, Rcade, I like stuff like this. Its petty, meaningless, and does more to remind the American public of just how elitist and anti-American a huge portion of our elected representatives are. This right here is good for another 50,000 ----------.

Keep up the good fight!!

#105 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-05-23 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL...statistically ZERO????? Is that some more name manufacturing? Besides, if they require an ID to drive a car, receive welfare, cash a check, buy a beer, or gain entrance into an airport, why are they -------' about having one to vote? it appears to me there can be only one reason for not having one.

#103 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Yeah - being poor. Which is why repubs all decided to require it all of a sudden.

Not trying to hijack the thread topic, but you said if something isn't a big problem (like the redsk*ns name), government shouldn't change it. In-person voter fraud was not a problem, yet repubs organized a simultaneous country wide effort to create additional expense, governmental bureaucracy, and barriers to voting.

Vote-by-mail is a much easier place for fraud to occur, yet repubs didn't want to change that practice because absentee ballots favor republican candidates historically.

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Okay, here's an idea:

People want to keep the name Redskins. Let them.

Instead, change the MASCOT to a sunbather with a REALLY bad burn.

#109 | Posted by RevDarko at 2014-05-23 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yeah - being poor."

They can be obtained free. I would think the most logical reason would be that, for some reason, someone doesn't want to be identified for some reason.

#110 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Instead, change the MASCOT to a sunbather with a REALLY bad burn."

...In a really skimpy bikini....finally someone with a sensible idea. I just hope it doesn't require another act of the Senate.

#111 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-23 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

All the important items we have to worry about and they are worried about this? IDIOTS

#112 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-23 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#108 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG

I had nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That was LBJ and his "little" friends in Congress. Too bad you don't support their efforts:

On May 26, the Senate passed the bill by a 77-19 vote (Democrats 47-16, Republicans 30-2); only Senators representing Southern states voted against it.[15]:161[34]...

[T]he House passed the Voting Rights Act by a 333-85 vote (Democrats 221-61, Republicans 112-24).[15]:163–165[36]

en.wikipedia.org

#113 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-23 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

They can be obtained free. I would think the most logical reason would be that, for some reason, someone doesn't want to be identified for some reason.

#110 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Or not having a car to go get one. Or being too ill.

Of course if getting around isn't hard for YOU then it must not be an issue for anyone right?

Just because an ID is free for the voter doesnt mean the program would be free for the nation. So why are repubs suddenly willing to engage in totally unnecessary government spending and growing the government to solve the non-existent issue of in-person voter fraud?

#114 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would think the most logical reason would be that, for some reason, someone doesn't want to be identified for some reason.
#110 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG

But you wouldn't think the most logical reason to enact measures to protect against something that doesn't exist has more to do with the potential beneficial outcome to an individual party than it does the stated, "intended" purpose?

How interestingly inconsistent of you.

#115 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-23 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rcade [..] I merely asked if you want our legislators to decide what is offensive and what isn't. It's a fair question, especially in view of the fact you believe in the offensive trademark thing.

[...] I sincerely want to know your opinion on this. You've made the offensive ttrademark thing clear. I get it. But who do we assign the awesome task of deciding what is offensive and what isn't? Isn't that a slippery slope to give someone such power that would inevitably lead to first amendment issues?

#116 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-23 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That said it doesn't appear "Redskin" was seen as offensive until the late 60s.

I wold venture that it has always been offensive, you just haven't given a damn and in the early 20th century you were even less "civilized" than you are now.

#117 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-05-23 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wold venture that it has always been offensive, you just haven't given a damn and in the early 20th century you were even less "civilized" than you are now.

Exactly. And things that aren't offensive today may be deemed as such in 20 years. Who decides?

#118 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-23 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Isn't that a slippery slope to give someone such power that would inevitably lead to first amendment issues?

No. For the third time, trademarks are about commerce, not speech. No American has a constitutional right to use a word as a mark in commerce.

#119 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-23 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

IT WAS ALWAYS OFFENSIVE!

#120 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-05-23 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

No. For the third time, trademarks are about commerce, not speech

For the third time, I understand that. I am questioning who decides what is offensive and what isn't. I'm quite clear on my question, rcade.

#121 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-23 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am questioning who decides what is offensive and what isn't.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under rules established by the Lanham Act in 1946. Trademark examiners decide whether a mark is derogatory and should be excluded. Their decisions are subject to review by the USPTO's a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

This is perfectly sufficient for deciding fairly whether a mark should be rejected for being a slur or another derogatory word or phrase. You're imagining a problem where one does not exist.

#122 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-23 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

E #122 | POSTED BY RCADE

Why do you look past the fact that there has already been a trademark dispute for the exact reasons you put forth and the Washington Redskins prevailed in that dispute?

#123 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-23 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

political correctness is intellectual dishonesty.

they were named the redskins because they were tough and fierce. racial

slurs being an issue after all of the history of that organization

is mindboggling. America needs its balls back. Make no

apologies- tell 'em all to go to hell and buy their own team.

#124 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2014-05-23 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

America needs its balls back. Make no

apologies- tell 'em all to go to hell and buy their own team.

#124 | Posted by AuntieSocial

I'll repost #75 for you since you sound like exactly what I was talking about:

The football audience is a generally a macho conservative crowd, who are already angry that they're not allowed to be as racist homophobic and dominant as they once were. They fear any change and Fox tells them every day that the horrible libs are coming to ruin their lives. So something as sensible as getting rid of this racist team name becomes a moral stand against the creeping liberal totalitarian state in their fox-addled minds.

It's just like with environmental protection - it's a good thing to do, but LIBS want to do it, therefore all true red blooded american conservatives should oppose it, since their plutocrat propaganda sources have convinced them that anything libs want is EVIL!

#125 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-23 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#112 | Posted by sames1
"All the important items we have to worry about and they are worried about this?"

You could have posted this on almost any thread, and it would fit.

Why this one?

#126 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-05-23 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#122. Funny, but it would appear to me and any other person with at least 5% of viable brain matter that you are the one that sees a problem where one doesnt exist.

So, if the term "Redskins" is indeed derogatory, and trademarks are subject to review every 10 years as you stated, its been approved 8 times previously ,and the lawsuits have failed. Give it up. Your counterculture movement has hit the high water mark. Now youre just stirring s up.

#127 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-05-24 12:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

According to US definition, I have the minimum genetic material to be an Indian -- 1/16. My g'g'grandmother was an Indian. My grandmother was a quarter, but she looked almost full blooded.

As an Indian, I can say that I am not offended by the term "redskin".

#128 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-24 12:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

OMG!!!!!!! Racist Alert!!!!!

NESTLÉ ESKIMO PIE®

#129 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-05-24 02:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Eskimo pie,good one,exceptional american,I used to eat at Sambo's

#130 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-05-24 02:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

President Kennedy forced George Preston Marshall's hand in integrating the team when he made it clear that the Redskins could no longer play at DC Municipal Stadium (now known as RFK) until they signed an African-Anerican player. The land on which the stadium was built was owned by the government.

Obama doesn't have that kind of leverage with Dan Snyder since the Redskins are now on private property in Landover. But when DC builds a JerryWorld-like stadium in place of RFK, and Danny-Boy wants to move the team back into DC, you'd better believe the nickname issue will come front-and-center again.

#131 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-05-24 02:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, guess I'll be crushing my 1958 Chev APACHE pickup...

#132 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-05-24 02:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Be in it.

#133 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2014-05-24 02:50 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

So who is upset about this name? White people. Politicians with an agenda try to be so PC.

Even the Navajo code talkers appeared in Redskins jackets to poo poo the notion that the name is somehow racist.

Freaking idiot politicians.

#134 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-24 08:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why do you look past the fact that there has already been a trademark dispute for the exact reasons you put forth and the Washington Redskins prevailed in that dispute?

Why do you look past my previous comment that addresses this exact point?

#135 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-24 09:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Freaking idiot politicians."

Freaking idiot politicians AND their little "progressive" buddies TOO. Notice that this stupid thread is getting all this attention from them while the whole damn country is in a world of sheite. They're doing their bidding to keep attention away from all the failures of this stinkin' administration. Imagine, the Senate voting on this BS while refusing to vote to give government supervisors power to fire crooked and worthless employees that was passed by the House. The unions wouldn't like that. I gotta tell ya', I find them all disgusting any more and no longer amusing....and I don't care if you find THIS one abusive too, RCade, I find you idiots abusive and sickening as well.

#136 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-24 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Senate has not voted on this issue. Republicans would have filibustered it if they had.

#137 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-05-24 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"As an Indian, I can say that I am not offended by the term "redskin"."

So? How many people offended is enough for you? Seems like no number matters to you, so why bring up your own heritage? Ya damned Indiaroon! :)

136: I don't find it offensive, but I understand those who do. That said, I also don't think an act of Congress should be part of this discussion; the Senate and the House have much much better things to worry about. As I think back on this, I don't think Rcade has said he supports the Senate action either; he has merely reiterated the legal grounds...

#138 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-24 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

So Jest, if you're just excoriating the action of the 50 senators, I'm right there with ya. Shut up, senators! Let the people push the movement, by market action or political action. This is not a civil rights issue affecting millions; it's a football team name, for God's sake.

#139 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-24 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't find it offensive, but I understand those who do. That said, I also don't think an act of Congress should be part of this discussion; the Senate and the House have much much better things to worry about."

You must be the ONLY "progressive" on this thread with a hint of common sense. :-) The rest of 'em seem to have frequent diarrhea over the slightest thing they might consider to be non politically correct. They want more LAWS to correct all of it as if it would ensure nobody would ever be offended again. They REALLY need to get over it.

politicalhumor.about.com

#140 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-24 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

"So Jest, if you're just excoriating the action of the 50 senators, I'm right there with ya. Shut up, senators! Let the people push the movement, by market action or political action. This is not a civil rights issue affecting millions; it's a football team name, for God's sake."

Bless you, my son. (making sign of the cross) :-)

#141 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-24 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

140: I see in most of the "progressive" comments here the same thing I noted about Rcade: comments on the idea, not direct support of the senatorial action.

Has anyone on the thread actually said, "I support these senators; they are doing the right thing" or words to that effect? It's possible that I haven't read closely.

#142 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-24 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

As I think back on this, I don't think Rcade has said he supports the Senate action either; he has merely reiterated the legal grounds...
#138 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

The Senate shouldn't be asking the NFL to change the name. It should be passing a law that makes it clear that the term "Redskins" is a slur that will not be given trademark protection under our law.
#9 | POSTED BY RCADE

Right there in black and yellow....he certainly supports Senate action on this issue.

#143 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-24 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Freaking idiot politicians AND their little "progressive" buddies TOO. Notice that this stupid thread is getting all this attention from them while the whole damn country is in a world of sheite.

#136 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Sure. You're fine with congress wasting time on a 9th Bengazi investigation though or trying to name every outdoor object after ronald reagan.

#144 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-24 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

wasting time on a 9th Bengazi investigation "

and yet ONE MORE NEWS MAKING email has come out about benghazi....ANOTHER email HIDDEN by this lying white house........

to this issue.....the CLIPPERS were so upset when the owner was recorded speaking in PRIVATE in his OWN HOME......if it's so important, they SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO PLAy and NO FANS should have come to the game...

just like this...if it's SO IMPORTANT...........DO NOT ATTEND the game wnd put money in the owners pocker !!! do NOT BUY a single jersey or other things for the team.

WHAT"S THAT.....cant' or WON"T stop worshiping these overgrown trained employees ?

if NOT...it'a not as important as you people said it was

#145 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-24 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

143: On the larger issue, point taken.

145: I'm willing to bet that lots of those commenting simply aren't football fans.

#146 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-24 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Sure. You're fine with congress wasting time on a 9th Bengazi investigation..."

We just wonder why we need to go through all this just to get some honest answers from this most transparent administration in all history. But I'm sure YOU already KNOW all the answers...riiiiiight?

mash.network.coull.com

#147 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-05-24 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

We just wonder why we need to go through all this just to get some honest answers from this most transparent administration in all history. But I'm sure YOU already KNOW all the answers...riiiiiight?

mash.network.coull.com

#147 | Posted by jestgettinalong

No, you just consider anything that isn't an admission of massive fault or conspiracy to not be an "honest answer"

So if there is no massive fault or conspiracy, then you'll never think you get your "honest answer"

#148 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-24 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Amazing how a lot of these 'kool-aid lefties' get their panties in a wad over a name and trademark laws, while their 'savior' tramples all over the U.S. Constitution and uses it like it was a dirty piece of toilet paper...!!!

#149 | Posted by drsoul at 2014-05-24 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#149 | POSTED BY DRSOUL

You're amazed? Naivete thy name is DRSOUL.

#150 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-24 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Amazing how a lot of these 'kool-aid lefties' get their panties in a wad over a name and trademark laws, while their 'savior' tramples all over the U.S. Constitution and uses it like it was a dirty piece of toilet paper...!!!

interesting...tell me...if this is the case, impeach him. bring charges...put your man pants on and do it.....call your congress person..do it....yea...that's what i thought.. you're diaper needs changing.

#151 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-05-24 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

and yet ONE MORE NEWS MAKING email has come out about benghazi....ANOTHER email HIDDEN by this lying white house........

impeach him...do it..come on ...weak...very weak...

#152 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-05-24 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

...worse than watergate..really? don't have too google knowing people went to prison for that, and if Ford didn't pardon Nixon he was going to prison.

so wake me when you prove law was broken...you wont and you cant...but ....carry on

...... I ain't no band leader! Yeah. I heard that story.

#153 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-05-24 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

come on girls...impeach...impeach the the socialist, fasicst, Kenyan, nazi, ..if your reading this you're an idiot, but you knew that.

#154 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-05-24 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

yo?

#155 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-05-24 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

that's what i thought

#156 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-05-24 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

DREWINNJ.....you prattle a lot, but say nothing 'cupcake'...!!!

#157 | Posted by drsoul at 2014-05-24 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort