|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
It's not about 'giving in'.
It's going to come to a point where the league will force Snyder to change the name. Very soon.
It's not that much different from the Donald Sterling case.
These guys own the team, but in a business sense they're franchisees. They have a little more leeway than your average franchisee, but at the end of the day, when the boss says 'jump', you can put up a fight, but sooner or later you have to ask 'how high?'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
I agree with what you have said about teams having huge fan bases and the likelihood they'll feel pressure to change either names or logos. I've said that myself, along with whether or not an owner should be forced into changing. There's also the chance the NFL, like the NBA, would prefer that their franchises not be offensive to the general public.
I understand why people don't want things to change, but that doesn't eliminate facts. I have no doubt there are more than just a few who would prefer our society move beyond the need to exploit stereotypes whether or not the majority agrees. I imagine if independent opinions could be recorded about whether or not America should allow exploitation of racial stereotypes, as these examples surely are, there would a majority who would say no.
The Patriots, Raiders, Bucs, Vikings, Cavaliers don't have racially charged connotations in the way the name redskins and the logo Chief Wahoo do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,815
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,815 |
j/c Hmmm....  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
The Federal Government does not recognize them as an official tribe.
But they'll recognize elizabeth warren.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
It's an offensive name that isn't even based on truth. They are NOT "red."
Since it was Chief Allen Wright of the Choctaw Tribe in the 1866 treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw who named the land "okla humma", Oklahoma, meaning "red people", I'm having a difficult time believing that they do not consider themselves as "red people" and they find the term offensive.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
I find it amazing that so many of you care so much about protecting the name. Why? Seriously, why is it SO important to YOU that the name not be changed?
And how is the name "Braves" offensive? Answer--------it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426 |
Quote:
If the Indians think enough people are dissatisfied they'll change it. That's the marketing ingredient in all of this. Logos are marketed and fans react to them. Hopefully in a positive way.
You are dead on with this. The Indians, in my mind, have been trying to weed out Chief Wahoo for a while. Back in the early 2000s, they tried desperately to make the script I work as a logo and fans didn't buy it, had no desire for it. The block C has sold. The blue hat with red C sold. They expanded it and switched the colors, it sold. The new BP had of the block C has sold. That is entirely why it was taken off and has become the primary logo.
[color:"green"] "World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Please talk amongst yourselves." Get Fuzzy[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Consider themselves red? What?
I said they were not red. They aren't. I never mentioned a thing about what they "consider" themselves as.
Are you really trying to suggest that their skin tone is red?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,103
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,103 |
I don't believe any are disputing (or have a problem with) the logo. IMO, it's great. If the name needs to be changed, so be it. As Vers suggested, "Braves", has a similar connotation without being offensive. Just get it done; there are bigger fish to fry...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,815
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,815 |
Quote:
I don't believe any are disputing (or have a problem with) the logo. IMO, it's great. If the name needs to be changed, so be it. As Vers suggested, "Braves", has a similar connotation without being offensive. Just get it done; there are bigger fish to fry...
the logo is not offensive and portrays a brave with red face, so why would a name saying what the color of the face be offensive?
What it really boils down to is your interpretation of the words, what image comes into your mind when you hear or see the words.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,822 |
The NFL will find it very difficult to force a franchise to make a change along those lines against the wishes of its owner. The Redskins have been around for 80+ years, and I am sure that the Redskins could prove that they could be seriously and irreparably harmed by being forced into a name change. They could wind up suing the NFL in the event that the NFL tries to force them into a name change, and would have a great chance of winning.
I don't think this will get to that point though.
Further, overall this simply isn't that big of an issue, Some in DC are trying to look "sensitive" by moving now to oppose the Redskins name. (even though they probably frequently attend Redskins games, or really don't care nearly as much as they pretend to) Also, other than a vocal and very small minority, in the general public, no one cares about the name. (Native Americans included, from many articles I have read on the matter) There are a few people who are all worked up over this ..... and others who could not care less if they tried. There are also those who are tired of hearing people complain about relatively trivial things (public perception) while the country is in serious trouble. Still more are general NFL fans who don't want to lose a cornerstone franchise's name.
I challenge you to walk up to 20 people today and ask them about the name and team, and see their responses (just ask them what they think of the Redskins controversy) I bet that you will get some who have no idea what you're talking about ...... others who don't care .... a handful who will think it's just terrible, but will forget all about it as soon as you leave .... maybe 1 or 2 who truly will think that it's a terrible injustice ..... and still more who are just tired of being told what to do and think by other people. Others still will have seen the Redskins logo and wonder what the problem is, as it does look like a respectful representation. Most won't be all that concerned. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. They have more important things to worry about, and this doesn't make the list for most people. It simply is not that important an issue .... and I don't see it being elevated to that point.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,475 |
Quote:
Further, overall this simply isn't that big of an issue, Some in DC are trying to look "sensitive" by moving now to oppose the Redskins name. (even though they probably frequently attend Redskins games, or really don't care nearly as much as they pretend to)
I agree with this Ytown. Just seems to me that you get a few folks in this Politically Correct world we live in, that don't like the name, they talk the loudest thus they get the press and the political hacks come out trying to appear sensitive.
I have serious doubts that any large number of any group cares about the name of the team. Same for the Braves, Indians etc.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,271
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,271 |
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,475 |
Quote:
I know I don't.
Right there with you Peen..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
I find it amazing that so many of you care so much about protecting the name. Why? Seriously, why is it SO important to YOU that the name not be changed?
And how is the name "Braves" offensive? Answer--------it isn't.
Because you COMPLETELY miss the point....They are not protecting a Name....Most could care less either way....
What they are protecting is an owner from being forced to change his/her LEGAL business practices just because a tiny minority is "offended"
You see in this country there is a right to free speech, there is a right vote, there is a right to a choice of religion....But NO WHERE is it stated that you have the right to NOT BE OFFENDED....That right simply does not exist.
Look we give free speech rights to KKK members....you don't like what they have to say...It is extremely offensive....BUT they are free to say it.
Now an owner of a business should be able to name that business ANYTHING they want....Granted naming your business on a racial slur is not probably the smartest thing...But then that is not for YOU to decide...that is for THEM to decide as IS THEIR RIGHT.
YOU as an American can voice your displeasure...ask others to join you. You also have the choice to NOT CONTRIBUTE to the business. But what you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to do is FORCE THEM to change the name.
Businesses exist to make money....If the money starts to fall short BECAUSE of the name...the business will either change the name or fall under...simple as that...If it doesn't......well you will have to learn to live with the offense....much as we all have learned to live with the offense that the KKK and other hate groups can spread their message of hate.
People are not protecting the name...but something LARGER. I think the question needs to be asked...why do you let a name affect you so easily??? I am reminded of the movie Roadhouse.....The one guy says "what if he calls my mother a whore????" And Swayze comes back "well is she???" I don't think I need to spell out the point.
I don't think the Redskin name is sensitive in these times.....But I also think that the wrong people are upset about it. And lastly I think it is even more wrong to try and force anyone to change the legal name of their business based on such a minority of people who are upset with it who don't have the right to make them change it in the first place.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Pete, I agree with everything you said, the only caveat is that each team operates under an agreement with the NFL, which operates under an anti-trust charter with the government... this is much bigger and more complicated than a guy opening a printing company and giving it a derogatory name.. similar to Sterling being forced to sell the Clippers.. I don't like the precedent it sets either but it's a bigger issue than just a business owner and his free speech rights.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
It's not the image they have trouble with it's the name. But if I were the designer of that coin, and I was alive, I'd consider issuing a cease and desist order. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
As one who has both hats, I really like the block C the best.
All in all I think the Indians are doing their best to keep everybody happy with this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Like I said, I couldn't care less, but it's going to change. Soon.
Maybe not next year, but the name will be Warriors or something pretty soon.
And they'll have a tough time winning a lawsuit against the NFL. They're a franchisee of a 501(c)(6) organization.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
Because you COMPLETELY miss the point.
Of course I do.
So tell me...........would they allow an owner to call his team the Nashville Niggers? It's his team. He has free speech.
What's the difference?
But of course, I COMPLETELY miss the point and you COMPLETELY get it. Pfffttttttttt
The double standard gets me. Why did a player get in trouble for saying negative things about Sam? Doesn't he have free speech? Why are NFL people fired for making politically incorrect remarks about African Americans? Don't they have free speech?
You are the one who COMPLETELY missed the point. It's about several groups having enough voices to be heard, so no one can say anything about them and another group that doesn't have much a voice, so you closet racists can say whatever the hell you want about them.
Hypocritical.
Last edited by Versatile Dog; 06/16/14 05:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
So tell me...........would they allow an owner to call his team the Nashville Niggers? It's his team. He has free speech.
So, are you saying if they had an all black team with a black owner and he wanted to name the team Nashville ., they wouldn't let him?
This whole Redskins thing is nothing more than PC garbage. Some people have decided that they are 'offended', and they are trying to make political points on how non-racist they are and how much they care. It's stupid. Harry Reid has been in the Senate since 1987. Did he care about the name then, or was he at the games? This is all a bunch of generated crap.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Yes, I am saying that.
Stay angry about changing a team's name. It's revealing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
That's correct. Also come on, you really can't think natives don't want the name to be a slur to show off how non-racist they are, really?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
So, are you saying if they had an all black team with a black owner and he wanted to name the team Nashville ., they wouldn't let him?
Absolutely not.
Are you saying they would?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Here is an example of the "free speech" in the NFL. Quote:
Negative tweet about Michael Sam draws fine for Miami Dolphins' Don Jones | cleveland.com
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/05/negative_tweet_about_michael_s.html
MIAMI -- Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones was fined an undisclosed amount Sunday and will undergo educational training after sending a negative tweet about Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to be selected in the NFL draft.
Shortly after the St. Louis Rams took Sam in the seventh round Saturday, Jones tweeted "OMG" and "Horrible." The tweets were taken down a short time later.
Jones apologized for his comments Sunday and described them as inappropriate. The Dolphins said Jones has been excused from all team activities until he completes training related to his comments.
"We were disappointed to read Don's tweets," coach Joe Philbin said in a statement. "They were inappropriate and unacceptable, and we regret the negative impact these comments had on such an important weekend for the NFL. We met with Don today about respect, discrimination and judgment. These comments are not consistent with the values and standards of our program."
The Dolphins reacted swiftly to Jones' comments in the wake of the team's bullying scandal last year, which embarrassed the NFL and prompted a nationwide debate about workplace harassment.
Jones said he regretted that his tweets took away from Sam's "draft moment."
"I remember last year when I was drafted in the seventh round, and all of the emotions and happiness I felt when I received the call that gave me an opportunity to play for an NFL team, and I wish him all the best in his NFL career," Jones said in a statement. "I am committed to represent the values of the Miami Dolphins organization, and appreciate the opportunity I have been given to do so going forward."
Jones' agent, Chris Martin, could not be reached Sunday for comment.
Seriously?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Pretty soon you won't be able to line up across from another player and say, "How's your wife and my kids", to try and get him to jump offsides. I hate this PC crap.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Yep. First thing is banning racial slurs the next step is banning all greetings. You have discovered the secret liberal agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,621
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,621 |
The agenda is getting them to keep their mouth shut and color about anything they disagree with. Labeling them with negative stereotypes any time they do otherwise. Pretty much the exact same thing they claim to be against.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,735
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,735 |
I can't believe this country has raised so many.....* ummmm be delicate here gm so you don't get banned* big kitty cats. We have so many problems in this country that need fixed yet people waste time on this piddly crap 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
Yep. First thing is banning racial slurs the next step is banning all greetings. You have discovered the secret liberal agenda.
I would say it's more an Orwellian attempt to limit speech by limiting language. It's kind of like changing the word 'midget' for 'little people' or using 'vertically challenged'. What's wrong with the word midget? It's a medical term. Just about every other term is being challenged as being offensive. Pretty soon, we'll be left with an Orwellian language where no one can properly express themselves, or everything that is said will be offensive to someone. It's downright asinine. People don't have the right to not be offended, as has been stated before on this thread. The name Redskins was not picked to offend, but was picked out of respect for the indigenous culture.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,822 |
I think that people do have the right to be offended ..... but those offenders also have the right to be offensive.
I am offended by music that calls women "b's", and hos. I am offended by seeing increasingly graphic representations of sex on TV. Because of this I don't listen to certain music, and I don't watch certain TV shows. I have the right to change the station or change the channel. If I am listening to a speech by someone and I am offended by something he says, I have every right to get up and walk away.
I don't call for the abolition of such music and TV shows. I simply choose not to watch them or listen to them. I can choose to speak against the messages in such media, and use them as a bad example. I think that is far better than just trying to forbid them and making them into some sort of forbidden fruit.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,735
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,735 |
Here is a free cell phone, section 8 housing, Obama care, food stamps, and discounts of your utility bills Now shut the hell up and complain about every whinny ass little thing that we tell you too and be happy about it damnit.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I ask this every time the issue comes up, and no one's ever answered...
Why do so many people pretend that the whole notion of being politically correct is a left or liberal thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Weren't you the one who started a thread calling for the firing of some D-list celebrity from the 'American Pie' movies because he tweeted some vulgar comments about Republican candidates wives?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,822 |
Yep, I may have.
Emotions sometimes get the best of me. I admit that it's a struggle.However, in the end, this is a free country, and freedom of speech is a guaranteed right ..... and the right for a person to embarrass himself with crude, ignorant speech is part of that guarantee. I didn't care for what he said ..... and in fact, thought that it was revolting. I won't watch anything with him in it, as that is my right. Other people can watch his stuff, if they choose. If he worked for me, I probably would have fired him as I would not want that kind of garbage associated with my company. That's just me though.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I don't think that's the only example, but I'll let it go at that. My point is larger than you.
Everyone likes to sneer at the notion of 'P.C.', until it comes to something that offends their sensibilities.
I made a similar point in another thread the other day...it may be a bit of a strawman argument, but the likelihood of someone rolling their eyes at the notion of being P.C. and being the same person to say they don't want to see gays kissing on TV is pretty high.
You ever watch FOX? They'll cry foul about the 'liberal P.C. left' and then turn around and complain about a statement or act they find offensive. Hence my constant questioning over the years as to why so many paint the idea of 'P.C.' to be a liberal or left ideal.
No one likes censorship until it's something they want censored.
People usually point to such censure as being a part of a communist or totalitarian system. but it occurs just as much in a capitalist system. Hence why people like Maher and Hank Jr. got fired...you have to appeal to as many bases as you can. Inflammatory statements hurt the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,822 |
I think that a person can not want to see certain things on TV, or hear certain things in their music, without necessarily being PC. I have never called for the censorship of certain rap music, for example, that calls women "Hos", even though I find that rather disgusting. I won't listen to that kind of garbage, but it is up to other people to decide what they want to listen to.
I think that far too much gets lumped together under the umbrella of political correctness.Where does the line get drawn when someone opposes certain language or speech on moral grounds? People have the right to be offended, and frankly, for any reason. Other people have the right to express their support for such language. I find certain kinds of speech, especially that which degrades and objectifies women, to be particularly offensive. I may speak against it. Is that politically correct? Is it politically incorrect? I think that if someone has the right to speak as they see fit, then others have the right to speak against what they said, and t do so without labels.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
Quote:
This whole Redskins thing is nothing more than PC garbage. Some people have decided that they are 'offended', and they are trying to make political points on how non-racist they are and how much they care. It's stupid. Harry Reid has been in the Senate since 1987. Did he care about the name then, or was he at the games? This is all a bunch of generated crap.
Aside from your willingness to write off other people's concerns as "crap" because you don't agree and the willingness to buy into the idea that it's politically generated to hurt your feelings, why is using negative stereotypes a good way to sell products?
Haven't you DECIDED that you're offended by people being offended?
I don't mind the times that I've been called a racist. I didn't have to go to the hospital, the therapist, it didn't effect my marital relations and I didn't cry myself to sleep. I am of a generation that, to be honest, have difficulty not having beliefs that many would call racist, but I do my best not to give in to those beliefs. Not because I'm a special "nice guy" being all "PC" but because I think MOST people are the same.
I don't believe people have "decided" that being offended by these things will earn them "non-racist" points. I think most people, especially younger, see the obvious and think it's time to stop.
There are a ton of things to criticize Harry Reid and other politicians for other than listening to constituents concerns about this issue and if you we want to go political then why are conservatives devoting so much effort into deciding they're going to be offended by the offended even to the point of George Will deciding if some one is raped they have achieved a "coveted" status. Have conservatives decided that everyone who claims offense has attacked them somehow? It really seems to be an irrational response to issues that take no skin off of their backs.
Why so defensive??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,735
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,735 |
Quote:
I ask this every time the issue comes up, and no one's ever answered...
Why do so many people pretend that the whole notion of being politically correct is a left or liberal thing?
How would I know? I think it's more of a chicken crap thing myself
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Anti-Redskin Ad (I implore all of
you to watch)
|
|
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
