sleeper;1140181 wrote:I don't start threads in the politics forum because it takes 6 months for LJ to approve anything. I certainly do not mind if any of my threads are placed there.

Hey look, Sleeper with more bullshit!!

isadore;1140191 wrote:You rave, lol I continue to win. I better stop I am just running up the score now. Put in the subs, shrink my vocabulary and use of facts so we can relate on a more equal level from now on. You do know that rationality has little to do with your expressed opinions. No maybe you don't know that. Sorry I brought it up, I guess I was just running up the score and that is not right, because I do believe in fairness even for the privileged.

Let me know when you are done crying about how unfair everything is instead of actually going out and getting a job like the rest of us.

WebFire;1140193 wrote:Must also get rid of:

Patriots
Steelers
Texans
Titans
Chiefs
Raiders
Redskins
Cowboys
Giants
Vikings
Saints
Buccaneers
49ers

Celtics
Cavaliers
Wizards
Warriors
Kings
Mavericks

Red Sox
Yankees
White Sox
Royals
Twins
Mariners
Rangers
Angels
Nationals
Braves
Pirates
Brewers
Padres

And that's just for starters.

The British might find 76ers offensive, and we don't want to hurt their feelings.

HitsRus;1140184 wrote:Sports illustrated (and others) did a poll and found that 90% of native Americans had no problem with school or pro team logos being used, with many actually supporting it. But almost 100% of 'activists' found it insulting.

I think that pretty much sums it up. It really is an issue only to those who want to use it for something.

It seems there still are people that have a problem with it. I would also venture to say that MOST people haven't even taken it into consideration.

It is insulting. It was demonstrated how other similar situations would be insulting...so how is it not insulting when it deals with Native Americans? I guarantee you go to a reservation and say something about the "Redskins" you'll get more than 90% of people feeling insulted.

I would like to hear a "real" reason on why the Native American imagery should be allowed. It is stereotypical. It is painting a picture of certain people groups with a broad stroke. At the same time, these universities and organizations are making millions of dollars off of these people groups -- with nothing in return, for the most part. For a long time, 90% of America probably thought women's rights were worthless. For a long time 90% of the world probably had no problems with slavery. Guess what...they both were wrong. Heck, 90% of Germany didn't do anything when the Nazi's were slaughtering Jews...was that right?

sleeper;1140188 wrote:It only causes pain for the weak. Do you really want to live in a world where we cater to the weak?

There is no higher quality of life, healthcare, education, and freedom than the United States of America. A democracy does not mean taking from the rich to give to the poor. The poor are poor because they want to be poor. "Woe is me" I am poor in America but I have the latest smartphone, cable TV, new shoes, new clothes, new car, new hairstyle every month, etc. You want poor? Go to North Korea, that is what happens when we subscribe to your radical leftist policies, we all become poor and we all become slaves to the government.

Well aren't you the little social darwinist. Of couse there are nations where the people live longer, have less infant mortality rate, higher level of education, higher per capita income, greater social mobility, greater level of personal freedom and a more equitable society. And I as an American want those things for my fellow citizens. You personally either fail to comprehend what drives Americans into poverty or wilfully refuse to acknowledge the many factors that do.

sleeper;1140197 wrote:Let me know when you are done crying about how unfair everything is instead of actually going out and getting a job like the rest of us.

I got a job. Just wish more Americans had access to the quality employment they deserve.

isadore;1140202 wrote:I got a job. Just wish more Americans had access to the quality employment they deserve.

WebFire;1140193 wrote:Must also get rid of:

Patriots
Steelers
Texans
Titans
Chiefs
Raiders
Redskins
Cowboys
Giants
Vikings
Saints
Buccaneers
49ers

Celtics
Cavaliers
Wizards
Warriors
Kings
Mavericks

Red Sox
Yankees
White Sox
Royals
Twins
Mariners
Rangers
Angels
Nationals
Braves
Pirates
Brewers
Padres

And that's just for starters.

And the problem is...none of those groups (outside of the Braves, Warriors, and Redskins -- which we've discussed) have endured what Native Americans have. But, it's easy for white-America to not have a problem with Native American stereotypical imagery and language. So, those mascot names don't qualify.

LJ;1140203 wrote:

cute dog, what's his stand on mascots.

isadore;1140200 wrote:Well aren't you the little social darwinist. Of couse there are nations where the people live longer, have less infant mortality rate, higher level of education, higher per capita income, greater social mobility, greater level of personal freedom and a more equitable society. And I as an American want those things for my fellow citizens. You personally either fail to comprehend what drives Americans into poverty or wilfully refuse to acknowledge the many factors that do.

They have 1 of those things, but when combined, nothing comes anywhere near the United States. You want those things? Go make a crap ton of money and donate all of it to the charity of your choosing. Leave me to make my millions and keep it.

America is the world's greatest country, built on the backs of the greedy who wanted a better life for them and their family. If you don't like it, leave.

isadore;1140202 wrote:I got a job. Just wish more Americans had access to the quality employment they deserve.

Why don't you hire them then?

OSH;1140204 wrote:And the problem is...none of those groups (outside of the Braves, Warriors, and Redskins -- which we've discussed) have endured what Native Americans have. But, it's easy for white-America to not have a problem with Native American stereotypical imagery and language. So, those mascot names don't qualify.

Are you okay with Indian casinos that depict tribal huts and imagery for profit?

sleeper;1140216 wrote:Are you okay with Indian casinos that depict tribal huts and imagery for profit?

Blacks can call each other niggas, indiana can use a teepee.

Raw Dawgin' it;1140220 wrote:Blacks can call each other niggas, indiana can use a teepee.

Exactly. So who's the real racist now? deciding which skin color can say certain words and can use their culture for profit; only in America.

sleeper;1140221 wrote:Exactly. So who's the real racist now? deciding which skin color can say certain words and can use their culture for profit; only in America.

0_o

OSH;1140204 wrote:And the problem is...none of those groups (outside of the Braves, Warriors, and Redskins -- which we've discussed) have endured what Native Americans have. But, it's easy for white-America to not have a problem with Native American stereotypical imagery and language. So, those mascot names don't qualify.

So now it's not just being offended, but you have to have "endured something"? What is so offensive about have a team named after you? If anything, it shows respect for that group of people. Why would a team name themselves after something they want to make fun of? I'd consider it an honor.

Raw Dawgin' it;1140179 wrote:He just makes threads to push his political beliefs and opinions on race, religion, money, etc etc. He puts them in serious business because he's a troll and wouldn't get these threads approved in the political forum. So he comes here, ignores peoples arguments, posts his opinions and doesn't have to deal with getting an infraction.

You guys keep bitching about sleeper, but all he is doing is posting what he believes on a certain issue. It's really not that big of a deal. I don't see how any of this is trolling

WebFire;1140230 wrote:So now it's not just being offended, but you have to have "endured something"? What is so offensive about have a team named after you? If anything, it shows respect for that group of people. Why would a team name themselves after something they want to make fun of? I'd consider it an honor.

Especially hilarious because most of the people living now have never endured slavery, or having their lands taken away, etc. They want more benefits for the wrongs that happen 100+ years ago, when they were never born and probably not even their parents were born. When will the nonsense end?

WebFire;1140230 wrote:So now it's not just being offended, but you have to have "endured something"? What is so offensive about have a team named after you? If anything, it shows respect for that group of people. Why would a team name themselves after something they want to make fun of? I'd consider it an honor.

I believe I have touched on the "plight" subject -- which would also be the "endured something."

It is not offensive to have a team named after you...if that's all it were. To portray Native Americans as "braves," "redskins," "warriors," "chiefs," etc. is definitely a stereotype that should be done away with. As I mentioned earlier, if there were a team called the "Ricemen" and had an Asian-looking mascot with slanted-eyes, wouldn't that be considered offensive? There is NO respect in that.

There is also NO respect in using Chief Wahoo as he is. C'mon, a red-colored, smiling, Native American comic is "respectful?" That's a joke. I do see some teams as "honoring," like the Chicago Blackhawks, Florida State Seminoles, and Utah Utes. I may even through the North Dakota "Fighting Sioux" in there -- although "fighting" may be crossing the line. But, if they use those images and languages, then why no kick-back to the tribes/people? I think the Utes have some sort of kick-back to the Ute tribe, I could be mistaken though. That's not a problem. That would be more like honoring.

But using this logo is not honoring anyone:



And the name is definitely not honoring anyone. The "honor" thing is a scapegoat. There is absolutely no honor in it. If it were, then why aren't there teams "honoring" black people with big-lipped mascots? Why aren't there teams "honoring" Jews with mascots wearing yarmalukes? Why aren't there teams "honoring" those that slaughtered the Native Americans?

The "honor" loses it's credibility once these teams started painting the people groups with the same look. Not all Natives wear feathers and look like they make them. That's a negative stereotype. Just like the cartoon pictures I posted in the first page. It's not right.

So you're okay with ethnic slurs as long as they tribe gets money for it.

Wow.

sleeper;1140213 wrote:They have 1 of those things, but when combined, nothing comes anywhere near the United States. You want those things? Go make a crap ton of money and donate all of it to the charity of your choosing. Leave me to make my millions and keep it.

America is the world's greatest country, built on the backs of the greedy who wanted a better life for them and their family. If you don't like it, leave.

50 th on life expectancy, 48[SUP]th[/SUP] infant mortality, 45[SUP]th[/SUP] literacy, 8[SUP]th[/SUP] per capita income, social mobility among the lowest in advanced nations, and on and on mostly from CIA fact book. Several nations are head of us in most and a few in all the categories. LOL claim our country was built “on the backs of the greedy.” Do you actually think about what you right. Good part of the colonial economy was built on the backs of slaves and indentured servants. And slaves of course built the plantation economy in the South. Workers built our industries, working 70-80 hour weeks until they fought for their rights from “greedy.” And what my efforts will go towards is making America a fair and just society. That society would hopefully mirror that found in some of the nations of NW Europe.

isadore;1140248 wrote:50 th on life expectancy, 48[SUP]th[/SUP] infant mortality, 45[SUP]th[/SUP] literacy, 8[SUP]th[/SUP] per capita income, social mobility among the lowest in advanced nations, and on and on mostly from CIA fact book. Several nations are head of us in most and a few in all the categories. LOL claim our country was built “on the backs of the greedy.” Do you actually think about what you right. Good part of the colonial economy was built on the backs of slaves and indentured servants. And slaves of course built the plantation economy in the South. Workers built our industries, working 70-80 hour weeks until they fought for their rights from “greedy.” And what my efforts will go towards is making America a fair and just society. That society would hopefully mirror that found in some of the nations of NW Europe.

#1 in my heart.

If that's what you want isadore, write a check. Just say what you really want; the rich to pay for the ills of the poor. The only thing more un-American than that is Hitler's Germany, I can't believe you actually are supporting Hitler and what he did to millions of innocent Jews.

sleeper;1140247 wrote:So you're okay with ethnic slurs as long as they tribe gets money for it.

Wow.

This may be one of the few times I reply to you. This response is typical of what you do. Infer, ASSume, and completely butcher what people post. It makes conversations and discussions worthless. You just like to go on and on about nothing don't you? Do you actually contribute anything positive to anything you do in life?

But, I never said that.

If they actually are "honoring" the tribes, then there would be some kick-back to the tribes. There are NO ethnic slurs by using Seminoles (by Florida State), Utes (by Utah), and some others. Those aren't ethnic slurs and I clearly used them as examples of how there could be an "honor" and "kick-back" to those tribes. Now, "Redskins" and "Indians" just need to be removed. I think "Braves" could be okay, as long as they remove any Native American imagery and language from their organization. There is a debate on how the Chicago Blackhawks actually got their nickname, but it uses Native American imagery now...so, there could be some kick-back.

A business man like yourself (supposedly) should understand this. If someone's name/likeness is used, shouldn't there be some money awarded? C'mon Mr. McDonald's...would just anyone be allowed to use the golden-arches without actually giving McDonald's something in return? This is nothing to do with political-correctedness. This isn't even necessarily business. It's about that respect of a people group that was definitely wronged...meanwhile, these professional teams and universities use their likenesses as a profit without benefiting those groups that were wronged. Makes no sense. And it's swept under a rug so easy.

OSH;1140257 wrote:This may be one of the few times I reply to you. This response is typical of what you do. Infer, ASSume, and completely butcher what people post. It makes conversations and discussions worthless. You just like to go on and on about nothing don't you? Do you actually contribute anything positive to anything you do in life?

But, I never said that.

If they actually are "honoring" the tribes, then there would be some kick-back to the tribes. There are NO ethnic slurs by using Seminoles (by Florida State), Utes (by Utah), and some others. Those aren't ethnic slurs and I clearly used them as examples of how there could be an "honor" and "kick-back" to those tribes. Now, "Redskins" and "Indians" just need to be removed. I think "Braves" could be okay, as long as they remove any Native American imagery and language from their organization. There is a debate on how the Chicago Blackhawks actually got their nickname, but it uses Native American imagery now...so, there could be some kick-back.

A business man like yourself (supposedly) should understand this. If someone's name/likeness is used, shouldn't there be some money awarded? C'mon Mr. McDonald's...would just anyone be allowed to use the golden-arches without actually giving McDonald's something in return? This is nothing to do with political-correctedness. This isn't even necessarily business. It's about that respect of a people group that was definitely wronged...meanwhile, these professional teams and universities use their likenesses as a profit without benefiting those groups that were wronged. Makes no sense. And it's swept under a rug so easy.

Why does someone have to receive a kick back in order to be honored? Should the person who dots the I at Ohio Stadium receive $10,000,000 for doing so? What about honoring the 9/11 victims with their names on plaques at the new WTC, should they receive $10,000,000 per year to be honored?

I'm all for rational debate, but you've twisted your simply point into the most incoherent, hypocritical, illogical rant that I could possible read in my lifetime. You want minorities to receive special benefits for just being minorities. I can't get past your money making scheme to even engage in the discussion of anything else.

Comparing a company to a group of people is nonsensical and reflects poorly on your intellectual integrity. Oh the horrors of modern day Native Americans, free land, free education, free jobs, tax less business(casinos), life is tough. :rolleyes: