Redskins' Dan Snyder Announces Creation of Foundation to Help Native Americans

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I am not going to post a link because Mike Wise articles ought to be banned from all creation, but a news feed app pulled his latest Snyder hatchet job about finding a native american woman who posted a selfie with a 10 dollar bill over her mouth. You can guess the rest of the article.

I really would like to know what exactly Snyder did to Wise. I know the basics but he seems like he has only one mission and that is to tear anything that Snyder does down. And I would love to understand why the Post continues to employ him.

Perhaps it's not personal? Maybe it is because Snyder is terrible at his job? Is it possible that Snyder the owner has no redeeming qualities? Or maybe Wise just hates Jews?


It's really hard to guess why Wise dislikes him but if he is anything like me I would imagine he hates his guts for valid reasons....consistent failure, lack of leadership, constant "learning" from the past, price gouging fans, etc, etc, etc.

If Snyder was no longer the owner of the Redskins would you shed a tear, be indifferent, or celebrate?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

So you want them to lose the trademark, but not because you have a problem with the name, but because you hate Dan Snyder. Interesting...

If the team is rebranded, it will still be owned by Dan. Of all the reasons I have heard for changing the name, this is the first time I have heard loss of prestige of the Redskins brand due to not liking the owner.

Hate is such a weak word...I'm fine with him owning a team with a name other than Redskins.

The name deserves to be treated with honor...put it to rest before its too late.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by saden1

Hate is such a weak word...I'm fine with him owning a team with a name other than Redskins.

The name deserves to be treated with honor...put it to rest before its too late.

Originally Posted by saden1

but if he is anything like me I would imagine he hates his guts for valid reasons....

Hate is such a weak word, but you are willing to say that you hate his guts. It may be a weak word, buts its the word you use.

It still boils down to if the name is changed, the team is still owned by Snyder. If you have no problem with the name Redskins, but your problem is with Snyder, then say that you want a new owner. Only rail against the name if you truly believe its racist.

Saying you want the name to change based on hating the owner is as flippant to me as Peter King, Bob Costas, Mike Wise, and the rest of the media all of a sudden taking up the cause due to it bringing in advertising dollars when they wouldnt touch the cause prior to it enhancing their own wallets. That means its not really their cause, just a money maker to them. Its nothing more than a hypocrite for hire scheme.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Perhaps it's not personal? Maybe it is because Snyder is terrible at his job? Is it possible that Snyder the owner has no redeeming qualities? Or maybe Wise just hates Jews?


It's really hard to guess why Wise dislikes him but if he is anything like me I would imagine he hates his guts for valid reasons....consistent failure, lack of leadership, constant "learning" from the past, price gouging fans, etc, etc, etc.

If Snyder was no longer the owner of the Redskins would you shed a tear, be indifferent, or celebrate?

me personally, first i would admit my bias, that I am an unabashed Snyder apologist. I think he royally screwed the pooch the first 5-6 years of ownership, and has been learning to get better over the past decade. Being an owner of an NFL team is not something you learn from other business ventures, and it certainly isn't something that is a natural fit for most people that make their living making lots of money.

With that said, my reaction if Snyder were no longer the owner would wholly depend on who the new owner was and how his first decade went. There are only 32 NFL owners in the whole world, and only maybe 1 or 2 that "get it right" in their first 10 years. Heck, JJ has 3 SB rings yet I would say that he hasn't gotten it right in the last 17.

In Snyder, we have an owner who is:
1) passionate about the team and it's history (positive)
2) willing to spend on players (positive)
3) has surrounded himself with questionable advisors mostly (negative but trending positive)
4) starstruck (negative trending neutral - RGIII will push him on this one)
5) cares about the players (ie ST funeral, at bedside when RGIII was in hospital, and more we don't know about) (positive)
6) makes considerable effort to help when causes are brought to him (Haiti airlift, Breast Cancer, Native American living conditions) (positive)


overall, I think he will be an outstanding owner, and it's a shame people seem to have stone age memories around him.

The Post has a significant contingent that does everything it can to defame Snyder (and he has given them his share of ammunition especially early on). C'est la vie.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

"Colbert Report" Ignites Outrage With Deleted Asian Joke Tweet

Stephen Colbert made a satirical joke about the Snyder making this foundation but instead used Asians. Now everyone's losing their minds.

Oh so everyone is in uproar about that joke nowwww? As a huge Colbert fan, that character/joke been around since like 2007. And that's not Colbert's twitter, Colberts twitter account is StephenAtHome. The account associated is run by Comedy Central and not even Colberts writers so....

[Mechanix544]

I thought the outrage wasn't about a tweet, but this......

‘Colbert Report’ Joke Deemed More Offensive Than Other 'Colbert Report' Jokes - The Wire

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

I thought the outrage wasn't about a tweet, but this......

‘Colbert Report’ Joke Deemed More Offensive Than Other 'Colbert Report' Jokes - The Wire

I think alot of people dont understand Colbert character or get the humor. Sum up pretty good by the last paragraph:

"Whether the joke was offensive or not is really up to personal taste, but the line isn’t particularly surprising. Colbert’s entire schtick is playing a more overt caricature of conservative talking heads, making their implicit racism explicit in what is now an extended, decade-long bit. That one line — when divorced from context — appeared to just be a racist quip possibly illustrates the point. It's cranking offensiveness up so far as to be inherently unbelievable. Again, react however you choose, but this sort of thing is Colbert’s bread and butter.."

but again, please continue to be offended, it means its working

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

...However at the same time I understand that while it may be a minority of people that are offended by the name you have to at least respect and understand that.

Even if its as small as 10% the fact of the matter is that a key principle in this countries is at the very least respecting and hearing out the views of a minority opinion. Now if its hogwash like refusing to give your diabetic kid insulin because of certain religious beliefs then obviously its fair to quickly disregard that but in the case of something less tangible like the Redskins name I guess we've had a good run at least avoiding this discussion. ...

The problem, of course, is twofold:

(1) The mere fact that you hold, and others share, an opinion does not mean it is reasonable. Further, unreasonable opinions may be entitled to a respectful "hearing" if presented in a civil manner, but the opinion itself is not due any "respect" - if by respect you mean some level of acceptance.

(2) Many people holding minority opinions seem to believe that they are only heard or respected if their opinions are accepted and acted upon by the majority.

By every poll taken, the vast majority of the Native American community does not take issue with Skins name. Those who do have been heard. Respectfully so. The minority is not, however, now entitled to have their opinions accepted or acted upon out of "respect".


"I have heard what you said and understand the basis for your opinion. Nonetheless, I disagree with it and, with all due respect to you as a person, I believe that (1)your opinion that cannibalism should be an acceptable societal norm is idiotic and barbaric and (2) you are wrong for holding that opinion. Further, the majority of people have the same opinion as I do and we will punish you if you try to eat any one.

The Native American who object have been heard, their arguments understood but simply not accepted by the majority of NA people, much less by the majority of non-NA people. Nothing more is required. Thank you. Period.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The problem, of course, is twofold:

(1) The mere fact that you hold, and others share, an opinion does not mean it is reasonable. Further, unreasonable opinions may be entitled to a respectful "hearing" if presented in a civil manner, but the opinion itself is not due any "respect" - if by respect you mean some level of acceptance.

(2) Many people holding minority opinions seem to believe that they are only heard or respected if their opinions are accepted and acted upon by the majority.

By every poll taken, the vast majority of the Native American community does not take issue with Skins name. Those who do have been heard. Respectfully so. The minority is not, however, now entitled to have their opinions accepted or acted upon out of "respect".


"I have heard what you said and understand the basis for your opinion. Nonetheless, I disagree with it and, with all due respect to you as a person, I believe that (1)your opinion that cannibalism should be an acceptable societal norm is idiotic and barbaric and (2) you are wrong for holding that opinion. Further, the majority of people have the same opinion as I do and we will punish you if you try to eat any one.

The Native American who object have been heard, their arguments understood but simply not accepted by the majority of NA people, much less by the majority of non-NA people. Nothing more is required. Thank you. Period.

Entertaining fallacious argument. Patent and Trademark Office is on the case and when they are done the majority opinion will live on in purgatory.

I wonder if the little one will live up to "We'll never change [it]. It's that simple. NEVER -- you can use caps" once he loses the trademark.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Entertaining fallacious argument. Patent and Trademark Office is on the case and when they are done the majority opinion will live on in purgatory.

I wonder if the little one will live up to "We'll never change [it]. It's that simple. NEVER -- you can use caps" once he loses the trademark.

I would imagine it's likely they will grandfather in the Redskins trademark. But even if the team did lose the Trademark on the name itself, they would file patents around the R, and a spear, and a thousand other ands that would make the effort to take the name away meaningless. You might be able to use knock off Redskins, but the color scheme can't be deemed offensive, so you couldn't use Burgundy and gold as part of your merchandise. The funny thing is, in this case denying the trademark would likely increase the usage of the term Redskins, as people try to make knock offs of the 'Skins gear.

FYI, they could easily trademark 'Skins.

In any case if they were to lose, an appeal would surely follow, and nothing would change till after that. if ever.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I believe that (1)your opinion that cannibalism should be an acceptable societal norm is idiotic and barbaric and (2) you are wrong for holding that opinion. Further, the majority of people have the same opinion as I do and we will punish you if you try to eat any one.

Speak for yourself man.

j/k

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I would imagine it's likely they will grandfather in the Redskins trademark. But even if the team did lose the Trademark on the name itself, they would file patents around the R, and a spear, and a thousand other ands that would make the effort to take the name away meaningless. You might be able to use knock off Redskins, but the color scheme can't be deemed offensive, so you couldn't use Burgundy and gold as part of your merchandise. The funny thing is, in this case denying the trademark would likely increase the usage of the term Redskins, as people try to make knock offs of the 'Skins gear.

FYI, they could easily trademark 'Skins.

In any case if they were to lose, an appeal would surely follow, and nothing would change till after that. if ever.

They could do all sorts of hackish things but is it worth it? Once the trademark is lost the ship will eventually rust and sink.

[CRedskinsRule]

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLccCsTGNP4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMbnzl7Fj6w


I still say if they all just ate a damn Mentos, everything would work itself out.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d6rnC0U4T8

Dan just needs to believe in "himsmelf"