Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Here come the Redskins (*nothing piece MSN article)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, frankw said:

I don't think you fully understood the post sir.

Woke is a tired term and in general I only see it used by politicians pandering for votes or grifters lining their pockets off simpletons.

Maybe one day you'll have an awakening.

If you say so.  

I'm going to drop this and stick to the topic.   

The Redskin name should come back for no other reason than it should have never been removed.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Well before crying about it not being a Panther topic.  Please go through the menu and you'll see several topics that aren't Panther related.   

The best way to go about you day if you don't like the topic is STFU and go about your day.  When the moderators tell us ONLY Panther topics than I conform as I have for the past 20 years on this forum. 

Wiping away history is the best thing you can do, right?  It's funny that removing Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima and others classic brands for the sake of wokeness now we only have white people on our brands.  Kind of backwards.

Exactly

If reading comprehension is a problem, please see someone.  If you can read.  I said They might be reverting back to the Redskins.  Key word being MIGHT.

As far as whether they will or won't is up to the owner but it's being discussed.

The right thing to do is change it back.  The Redskins should be the name they should have never gotten rid of.  

@MHS831 Mentioned 38% in a poll.  One poll.  I have seen where other polls that were in FAVOR of keeping the name.  It just depends on who is polling.

Bottom line IMO a group of Native Americans.  The Native American Guardian Association has filed a lawsuit to change it back.  If a Native American group wants it back.  Who the hell are we to disagree. It comes down to the WOKE crowd can't stop interfering in everything they can get their hands on. 

Ur not my mom...so u STFU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

People misconstrue no longer celebrating and lauding racism, slurs, etc. as "censorship".

Using this logic I should be able to turn on my TV right now and see white actors in black face shucking and jiving to "Dixie", otherwise it's "erasing history".

And everyone that doesn't agree with you is a RACIST. 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Well before crying about it not being a Panther topic.  Please go through the menu and you'll see several topics that aren't Panther related.   

The best way to go about you day if you don't like the topic is STFU and go about your day.  When the moderators tell us ONLY Panther topics than I conform as I have for the past 20 years on this forum. 

Wiping away history is the best thing you can do, right?  It's funny that removing Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima and others classic brands for the sake of wokeness now we only have white people on our brands.  Kind of backwards.

Exactly

If reading comprehension is a problem, please see someone.  If you can read.  I said They might be reverting back to the Redskins.  Key word being MIGHT.

As far as whether they will or won't is up to the owner but it's being discussed.

The right thing to do is change it back.  The Redskins should be the name they should have never gotten rid of.  

@MHS831 Mentioned 38% in a poll.  One poll.  I have seen where other polls that were in FAVOR of keeping the name.  It just depends on who is polling.

Bottom line IMO a group of Native Americans.  The Native American Guardian Association has filed a lawsuit to change it back.  If a Native American group wants it back.  Who the hell are we to disagree. It comes down to the WOKE crowd can't stop interfering in everything they can get their hands on. 

Exactly!  If the pollster wants to achieve a certain result, they know who TO and who NOT TO poll.  Native Americans don't want to be wiped away from the national identity.  Having their names and likeness in popular culture, like sports, keeps them relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Oh I am sure that's coming.  Just because I don't believe in deleting history and changing everything to conform to their way of thinking.  I am going to be called a racist. 

Well, its history that in the early 1900's "redskins" was in fact a slur towards Native Americans akin to how the n-word or "negros" were to refer to black people. So yes, if you see no problem with a team calling themselves the Cincinnati Negros, then you might be a racist.

The only reason "redskins" wasn't more controversial when the team had it is because Native Americans are such a tiny minority of America (sadly) that most people were ignorant of it and there was little media pressure to change it.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Well before crying about it not being a Panther topic.  Please go through the menu and you'll see several topics that aren't Panther related.   

The best way to go about you day if you don't like the topic is STFU and go about your day.  When the moderators tell us ONLY Panther topics than I conform as I have for the past 20 years on this forum. 

Wiping away history is the best thing you can do, right?  It's funny that removing Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima and others classic brands for the sake of wokeness now we only have white people on our brands.  Kind of backwards.

Exactly

If reading comprehension is a problem, please see someone.  If you can read.  I said They might be reverting back to the Redskins.  Key word being MIGHT.

As far as whether they will or won't is up to the owner but it's being discussed.

The right thing to do is change it back.  The Redskins should be the name they should have never gotten rid of.  

@MHS831 Mentioned 38% in a poll.  One poll.  I have seen where other polls that were in FAVOR of keeping the name.  It just depends on who is polling.

Bottom line IMO a group of Native Americans.  The Native American Guardian Association has filed a lawsuit to change it back.  If a Native American group wants it back.  Who the hell are we to disagree. It comes down to the WOKE crowd can't stop interfering in everything they can get their hands on. 

My reading comprehension is fine.  The author, and you, just wanted some clicks, nothing more.  They said that they weren't thinking about a name change of any sort at this time.  

 Basically, it was corporate PR talk for, we aren't going to do that, but we aren't going to tell people we aren't going to do it.  

Edited by Davidson Deac II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Would Morgan or Beason have been HOFers' if injuries hadn't derailed their careers?  I was not a close watcher of the game when Morgan was in his prime but I thought Beason had a few seasons at close to Lukes' level of play.
    • Franchise QBs feast when things are rolling and the tide that raises boats when things are going sideways.  Bryce isn't that. He's a complimentary player, that's it.  When the defense and STs are on point, he plays loose and it shows.  When we are in a dog fight and things haven't gone our way, he struggles.  It's that simple. He's not a horrible QB, but he's not top tier either.  So the question begs, is this worthy of a second contract?  The answer should be no.  It definitely is my answer. Bryce will never be a QB that can produce wins largely on his arm.  That's a FRANCHISE QB, any other QB is simply a placeholder at the starter's position until that guy can be found.   At some point the excuses of lack of weapons will be a straw man.  Heck, it's nearly there now.  I mean if he doesn't look even better than last year will we blame it on the TE position?  'Well if Bryce only had a player like Kelce, Kittle or Gronk on this team...'  Are we really going to do that?  
    • When I arrived at college, I was 18, not too much younger than some of these draft picks.  It was not a huge school, but there were guys on the team who were 21, 22, 23....playing ahead of me.  I was seventh on the depth chart.  Those guys have been through a few seasons, were stronger, more knowledgeable.  I was a better raw player than some of them, but those other factors matter.  As I grew stronger, more familiar with the playbook, and learned what it was like to play in college, I gradually improved and with that, I rose up the depth chart.  It took most of my freshman year for the light to come on.  Had the coach thrown me into the starting lineup day 1, I would have probably failed.    And that was college.  So I agree with you based on my experience on a much lower level.  Frankly, I think that is why so many kids drafted to fill huge gaps bust.  The teams are desperate.  Anyone who looks to fill vacancies in the starting lineup through the draft is desperate.  You draft depth to develop.  For this reason, I say, "Let Walker start for a while."  Maybe Brazzell can be our WR 4.  Throw Hunter into a rotation and ask him to do one or two things.  Freeling needs some strength and he needs to work on run blocking.
×
×
  • Create New...