OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[strummingram]

Telling them they don't know what they are talking about and you thinking you know their history better than they do is a great way to show your preference. But you know three Indians, which is much better than those people who claim they aren't racist because they have a black friend.

I didn't ever say I "know their history better than they do." I'm talking about the history of the football team. And, I just mentioned the 3 clients THIS YEAR that I have talked to personally. I've spoken to people of Cherokee descent in western NC- about 4, total- and, none of them were concerned with it. When I was in Boy Scouts, we went to a summer camp weekend with a sub-group called The Order Of The Arrow. There were two Tuscarora tribe members there, in person. At the end of the evening, when they performed some native dances, I noticed one had a Redskins jacket! I asked if he was a Redskins fan. He had been all of his life. And, he even said the jacket was prized because of something about the meaning of the name Tuscarora... but, I forgot the details. Back to the three clients this year; They have conveyed that NO ONE they know on their reservation cares about it at all, and many of them support the team BECAUSE of the imagery and theme. So, it's a helluva lot more than just the 3 people that I talked to.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

those people who claim they aren't racist because they have a black friend.

Gotta love those ones.

 

[deandisciple]

Funny thing I noticed was if this racist thing needs fixin then why wasn't something done about before Trump became pres? Barry Sorento had 8 years to fix it and now Biden says he will get er done, but what did he do while he was in power? If it is so damn bad, why hasn't lifelong pols done anything about before?

 

[tarheel0910]

I didn't ever say I "know their history better than they do." I'm talking about the history of the football team. And, I just mentioned the 3 clients THIS YEAR that I have talked to personally. I've spoken to people of Cherokee descent in western NC- about 4, total- and, none of them were concerned with it. When I was in Boy Scouts, we went to a summer camp weekend with a sub-group called The Order Of The Arrow. There were two Tuscarora tribe members there, in person. At the end of the evening, when they performed some native dances, I noticed one had a Redskins jacket! I asked if he was a Redskins fan. He had been all of his life. And, he even said the jacket was prized because of something about the meaning of the name Tuscarora... but, I forgot the details. Back to the three clients this year; They have conveyed that NO ONE they know on their reservation cares about it at all, and many of them support the team BECAUSE of the imagery and theme. So, it's a helluva lot more than just the 3 people that I talked to.

The history is they use a racist name. Just because you try to dress it up and the Indians that you know say it's cool, doesn't change that. If Snyder changes the name of the team to the "n" word and says it's to honor the rich history of black people, does that somehow make it less racist. Will it be ok to you if the black people on your street aren't offended?

 

[strummingram]

The history is they use a racist name. Just because you try to dress it up and the Indians that you know say it's cool, doesn't change that. If Snyder changes the name of the team to the "n" word and says it's to honor the rich history of black people, does that somehow make it less racist. Will it be ok to you if the black people on your street aren't offended?

But, it's NOT "racist" in the context of The Washington Redskins.

I'm sorry if it offends you, no matter how it's used. Look on the bright side; they're going to change it and you'll get what you want.

And, for the record, I couldn't care less what ANY team wants to call themselves. I don't take it literally. I know it's a mascot. If I go see the Fighting Irish vs. the Pirates, I don't expect to see actual Irish guys (or leprechauns) fighting against the crew of the Black Pearl. I expect to see athletes playing a sport.

I'm not "dressing it up." I'm showing how it's not offensive in this context unless you want it to be. Just like the Red Mesa High School Redskins... it's not racist when they use it, either.

Why would anyone name their team "The N-Words?" Using a lame-ass American euphemism for sports team?

 

[carolinablue34]

I only believe it because it's true. I can see why you think that makes me a lunatic.

Lol give me one link showing that's anywhere near true.

 

[cletusnow]

Funny thing I noticed was if this racist thing needs fixin then why wasn't something done about before Trump became pres? Barry Sorento had 8 years to fix it and now Biden says he will get er done, but what did he do while he was in power? If it is so damn bad, why hasn't lifelong pols done anything about before?

Well, we all know the racism went away when Obama was elected and came back after Trump was elected.

 

[bluetoe]

Lol give me one link showing that's anywhere near true.

give me one link showing that it isn't.

 

[bluetoe]

The history is they use a racist name. Just because you try to dress it up and the Indians that you know say it's cool, doesn't change that. If Snyder changes the name of the team to the "n" word and says it's to honor the rich history of black people, does that somehow make it less racist. Will it be ok to you if the black people on your street aren't offended?

this is a fine example of liberal feelzy non-think. I so wish you could see it through the eyes of the sane.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Well, we all know the racism went away when Obama was elected and came back after Trump was elected.

Dang I was told in here countless times Obama was responsible for more racism than any president

 

[carolinablue34]

give me one link showing that it isn't.

Lol the onus isn’t on me to disprove a bullshit conspiracy theory. You made the insinuation. Prove it.

 

[bluetoe]

Lol the onus isn’t on me to disprove a bullshit conspiracy theory. You made the insinuation. Prove it.

so in other words, you can't prove that what I say isn't true. LOL, you just need to shut your piehole, poser.

 

[cletusnow]

Dang I was told in here countless times Obama was responsible for more racism than any president

That’s ridiculous! 1/2 black people cannot be racist. Maybe only 1/2 racist.

 

[carolinablue34]

so in other words, you can't prove that what I say isn't true. LOL, you just need to shut your piehole, poser.

Your reasoning is the equivalent of a small child lol. You throw out a baseless claim that you can’t back up which has no basis in reality and you call me a poser?

Lol so strange the way your angry little mind works. Lie down before you hurt yourself.

 

[prlyles]

Your reasoning is the equivalent of a small child lol. You throw out a baseless claim that you can’t back up which has no basis in reality and you call me a poser?

Lol so strange the way your angry little mind works. Lie down before you hurt yourself.

He’s a liar, that’s a real surprise......

 

[Raising Heel]

And that isn't even to mention that there was actual, serious talk of obama going Roosevelt on us.

Show me one credible source on that.

Lol give me one link showing that's anywhere near true.

You don't need a source or a link. All you need is a sixth grade civics class.

Obama serving a third term would've required a repeal of the 22nd Amendment. What does it take to change or repeal a Constitutional amendment? The same procedure it takes to create a new one. Article V requires an amendment to be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate. Obama's first Congress was the 111th session, in which Democrats held 56% of the Senate and 59% of the House. Neither one alone was sufficient for the two-thirds approval required. The Democrats continued to lose seats during the subsequent four sessions of Congress during his term so that they held only 47% in the Senate and 45% in the House when he departed office.

Article V also allows for an Amendment or repeal to be introduced via a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. At no point during Obama's presidency did Democrats control enough state legislatures to meet this requirement. And of course any proposal put forth by Congress or the states requires three quarters of the states to ratify it. Obama won 56% of the states in the 2008 election and 52% in 2012. Again, not remotely close to the conditions necessary to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

"Actual, serious talk." Lulz.

I only believe it because it's true. I can see why you think that makes me a lunatic.

Lunatic seems a little harsh. Let's just call you a gullible dupe. As punishment, you must spend the night in the basement of a pizzeria. Unless of course you think Obama was planning a military coup, in which case you might actually be a lunatic and should probably just stay down there. You know, for your own safety.

 

[heelmanwilm]

You don't need a source or a link. All you need is a sixth grade civics class.

Obama serving a third term would've required a repeal of the 22nd Amendment. What does it take to change or repeal a Constitutional amendment? The same procedure it takes to create a new one. Article V requires an amendment to be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate. Obama's first Congress was the 111th session, in which Democrats held 56% of the Senate and 59% of the House. Neither one alone was sufficient for the two-thirds approval required. The Democrats continued to lose seats during the subsequent four sessions of Congress during his term so that they held only 47% in the Senate and 45% in the House when he departed office.

Article V also allows for an Amendment or repeal to be introduced via a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. At no point during Obama's presidency did Democrats control enough state legislatures to meet this requirement. And of course any proposal put forth by Congress or the states requires three quarters of the states to ratify it. Obama won 56% of the states in the 2008 election and 52% in 2012. Again, not remotely close to the conditions necessary to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

"Actual, serious talk." Lulz.

Lunatic seems a little harsh. Let's just call you a gullible dupe. As punishment, you must spend the night in the basement of a pizzeria. Unless of course you think Obama was planning a military coup, in which case you might actually be a lunatic and should probably just stay down there. You know, for your own safety.

Damn u had a helluva 6th grade civics teacher

 

[tarheel0910]

But, it's NOT "racist" in the context of The Washington Redskins.

It's not racist to you. There's plenty of people, which includes Indians, that think it is. But go ahead and tell them how smart you are because you understand things so much better.

And, for the record, I couldn't care less what ANY team wants to call themselves. I don't take it literally.

Right, which is why you're giving up watching them, because you couldn't care less.

Why would anyone name their team "The N-Words?" Using a lame-ass American euphemism for sports team

Why would anyone name their team The Redskins? Using a lame-ass American euphemism for sports team.

 

[tarheel0910]

this is a fine example of liberal feelzy non-think. I so wish you could see it through the eyes of the sane.

This is one of those times where it's better for you to just drive on by because you don't know the board dynamics and what is actually going on. I'm not saying what you think I'm saying.

 

[gteeitup]

Dang I was told in here countless times Obama was responsible for more racism than any president

i believe it was something like “most ever divided under any president”

 

[strummingram]

But go ahead and tell them how smart you are because you understand things so much better.

Who the hell are you talking about? They told ME they don't care. I don't understand anything "better" or worse. I understand them as I understand them. I never said, or even implied, that it was "better."

Right, which is why you're giving up watching them, because you couldn't care less.

If they CHANGE it, that's a different situation. If it's a team that I have supported since I was a kid, and I have a lifelong tradition with the name, then that is a MUCH different situation. I've already endured 20 years of mediocre/losing seasons. I'm more fed-up with the owner, actually. Ironically, he's helped keep the name intact.

Why would anyone name their team The Redskins? Using a lame-ass American euphemism for sports team.

I don't think Redskins is a euphemism. If it were, then it wouldn't be getting so much flack.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

just drive on by

 

[dadika13]

This is one of those times where it's better for you to just drive on by because you don't know the board dynamics and what is actually going on. I'm not saying what you think I'm saying.

At least we got blessed with "liberal feelzy non-think" in a sentence. If he could read I'd think he got that straight out of 1984.

 

[Raising Heel]

Damn u had a helluva 6th grade civics teacher

Mrs. Shelton didn't play.

@bluetoe , don't let these drive-by poasters get to you. The seat for OOTB Mayor is up for grabs in November. Our last Mayor's term is up and even if it wasn't, he had a meltdown and quit on the job anyway. But you should throw your hat in the ring. I will endorse.

Funny you should mention that. Why wait for November? I'm stepping down so y'all can choose another Mayor however you want. I've been terrible at my job anyway. Not a single hooker or line of blow delivered.

 

[bluetoe]

Your reasoning is the equivalent of a small child lol. You throw out a baseless claim that you can’t back up which has no basis in reality and you call me a poser?

Lol so strange the way your angry little mind works. Lie down before you hurt yourself.

LOL, MY angry little mind? Your slip is showing. And MY reasoning is suspect? The same people who seriously believe that Trump will try to continue on as president in spite of losing the election, somehow aren't capable of seriously believing that there might be a possibility of a third term for obama? Idiots abound on that end of the political spectrum, and they are well represented here. There was plenty of serious talk of a third term for obama; and all you really need to know that there was, is common sense and a non-selective memory. It was the same with those lemmings when they were (and still are) enamored of Bill Clinton. Believe it or don't, matters not to me. But there is no more onus on me...in fact there is less... to provide proof of what I posit than there is on you to back up your challenge of it. So back it up or STFU. Poser.

 

[bluetoe]

At least we got blessed with "liberal feelzy non-think" in a sentence. If he could read I'd think he got that straight out of 1984.

I've got to go with your judgment on this as I always do.

And speaking of your good judgment, Bubba Wallace says hi.

 

[bluetoe]

You don't need a source or a link. All you need is a sixth grade civics class.

Obama serving a third term would've required a repeal of the 22nd Amendment. What does it take to change or repeal a Constitutional amendment? The same procedure it takes to create a new one. Article V requires an amendment to be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate. Obama's first Congress was the 111th session, in which Democrats held 56% of the Senate and 59% of the House. Neither one alone was sufficient for the two-thirds approval required. The Democrats continued to lose seats during the subsequent four sessions of Congress during his term so that they held only 47% in the Senate and 45% in the House when he departed office.

Article V also allows for an Amendment or repeal to be introduced via a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. At no point during Obama's presidency did Democrats control enough state legislatures to meet this requirement. And of course any proposal put forth by Congress or the states requires three quarters of the states to ratify it. Obama won 56% of the states in the 2008 election and 52% in 2012. Again, not remotely close to the conditions necessary to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

"Actual, serious talk." Lulz.

Lunatic seems a little harsh. Let's just call you a gullible dupe. As punishment, you must spend the night in the basement of a pizzeria. Unless of course you think Obama was planning a military coup, in which case you might actually be a lunatic and should probably just stay down there. You know, for your own safety.

if you possessed much of that ability called reading comprehension, you'd understand that the improbability of obama having a third term is exactly the point of my OP on the matter. But as with most highly limited people, you don't care to understand but instead create a circumstance in your limited mind that you can disparage, just to hear yourself bloviate. Knock yourself out. You should do what you're good at, and you are a champion bloviater.

 

[bluetoe]

But he was 1/2 white and we all know white people are terrible racists.



tl;dr

@bluetoe , don't let these drive-by poasters get to you. The seat for OOTB Mayor is up for grabs in November. Our last Mayor's term is up and even if it wasn't, he had a meltdown and quit on the job anyway. But you should throw your hat in the ring. I will endorse.

if nominated, I will not run; and if elected, I will not serve. But if I did run and if I was elected, you could kiss your two-term limit BS goodbye. Mayoral dictator for life, motherf***ers. Vote for me. I dare you.

 

[prlyles]

LOL, MY angry little mind? Your slip is showing. And MY reasoning is suspect? The same people who seriously believe that Trump will try to continue on as president in spite of losing the election, somehow aren't capable of seriously believing that there might be a possibility of a third term for obama? Idiots abound on that end of the political spectrum, and they are well represented here. There was plenty of serious talk of a third term for obama; and all you really need to know that there was, is common sense and a non-selective memory. It was the same with those lemmings when they were (and still are) enamored of Bill Clinton. Believe it or don't, matters not to me. But there is no more onus on me...in fact there is less... to provide proof of what I posit than there is on you to back up your challenge of it. So back it up or STFU. Poser.

You are a liar, show so proof.

 

[bluetoe]

You are a liar, show so proof.

does this seem intelligible to you? It doesn't to me. And BTW, you molest farm animals.

 

[tarheel0910]

Who the hell are you talking about? They told ME they don't care. I don't understand anything "better" or worse. I understand them as I understand them. I never said, or even implied, that it was "better."

You've said multiple times that your knowledge of the situation is better than those who disagree with you.

If they CHANGE it, that's a different situation. If it's a team that I have supported since I was a kid, and I have a lifelong tradition with the name, then that is a MUCH different situation. I've already endured 20 years of mediocre/losing seasons. I'm more fed-up with the owner, actually. Ironically, he's helped keep the name intact.

That's a whole lot of caring.

I don't think Redskins is a euphemism. If it were, then it wouldn't be getting so much flack.

You completely missed the point, which isn't surprising.

The bottom line is you are no different than someone flying the Confederate flag or holding on to statues talking about it being a heritage thing instead of what it actually means to other people of a different race. You refuse to see the obvious because you are on the other side now.

 

[heelmanwilm]

LOL, MY angry little mind? Your slip is showing. And MY reasoning is suspect? The same people who seriously believe that Trump will try to continue on as president in spite of losing the election, somehow aren't capable of seriously believing that there might be a possibility of a third term for obama? Idiots abound on that end of the political spectrum, and they are well represented here. There was plenty of serious talk of a third term for obama; and all you really need to know that there was, is common sense and a non-selective memory. It was the same with those lemmings when they were (and still are) enamored of Bill Clinton. Believe it or don't, matters not to me. But there is no more onus on me...in fact there is less... to provide proof of what I posit than there is on you to back up your challenge of it. So back it up or STFU. Poser.

I will guarantee you right now in front of anyone watching that if trump loses the election he or someone or some entity acting on his behalf will take legal action of some sort whether on a state or federal level to challenge the results in that state or nationally. Care to make a wager?

 

[carolinablue34]

LOL, MY angry little mind? Your slip is showing. And MY reasoning is suspect? The same people who seriously believe that Trump will try to continue on as president in spite of losing the election, somehow aren't capable of seriously believing that there might be a possibility of a third term for obama? Idiots abound on that end of the political spectrum, and they are well represented here. There was plenty of serious talk of a third term for obama; and all you really need to know that there was, is common sense and a non-selective memory. It was the same with those lemmings when they were (and still are) enamored of Bill Clinton. Believe it or don't, matters not to me. But there is no more onus on me...in fact there is less... to provide proof of what I posit than there is on you to back up your challenge of it. So back it up or STFU. Poser.

@Raising Heel already laid you to waste. Common sense states that the 22nd amendment would prevent anyone in office from seeking a third term. There was no 'serious' talk. It's just something you and other hard core right wingers made up because you don't like the guy or his policies.

So get it all out of your system and shut the hell up lol. The world needs one less angry redneck online.

 

[prlyles]

does this seem intelligible to you? It doesn't to me. And BTW, you molest farm animals.

You people think you can say shit that’s not true and expect people to not call you out. The truth still means something to a lot of people.

 

[tarheel0910]

You people think you can say shit that’s not true and expect people to not call you out. The truth still means something to a lot of people.

 

[gteeitup]

if nominated, I will not run; and if elected, I will not serve. But if I did run and if I was elected, you could kiss your two-term limit BS goodbye. Mayoral dictator for life, motherf***ers. Vote for me. I dare you.

it’s a self-appointed position...and nobody gaf about policies or procedures round here anyway.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I will guarantee you right now in front of anyone watching that if trump loses the election he or someone or some entity acting on his behalf will take legal action of some sort whether on a state or federal level to challenge the results in that state or nationally. Care to make a wager?

Completely agree. After watching the grasping at straws that was the aftermath of the Stacey Abrams loss - I fully expect any election that isn't a complete boat racing to get challenged.

 

[bluetoe]

You people think you can say shit that’s not true and expect people to not call you out. The truth still means something to a lot of people.

first of all, it IS true, you're just too ignorant to be aware of it. Second of all, LOL at your ilk respecting truth. Thirdly, how presumptuous of you to believe I didn't expect to be called out...that was the plan.

And lastly, you molest farm animals and do terrible things with gerbils.

 

[bluetoe]

@Raising Heel already laid you to waste. Common sense states that the 22nd amendment would prevent anyone in office from seeking a third term. There was no 'serious' talk. It's just something you and other hard core right wingers made up because you don't like the guy or his policies.

So get it all out of your system and shut the hell up lol. The world needs one less angry redneck online.

the only thing Raising Heel has laid to waste is his own mind. You can join him in being too stupid to understand that the 22nd amendment doesn't apply to anything I said, when I was talking about liberal dillweeds who thought there might be some way that obama could manage some sort of end around. I mentioned you indirectly in my reply to him, as being one of those who have to manufacture circumstances to argue against, since you don't have the mentality to argue what was actually posited.

The online world could also use one less fruitcake, but in the spirit of inclusivity I invite you to stay. Besides, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun without you to thump.

 

[strummingram]

You've said multiple times that your knowledge of the situation is better than those who disagree with you.


That's a whole lot of caring.


You completely missed the point, which isn't surprising.

The bottom line is you are no different than someone flying the Confederate flag or holding on to statues talking about it being a heritage thing instead of what it actually means to other people of a different race. You refuse to see the obvious because you are on the other side now.

Well, then, they're taking my statue down, or my flag, and I'm merely choosing to not support the team anymore, should that happen.

If my personal experiences, and interactions with the people who are allegedly being maligned had revealed that "Yes, we are offended", then I wouldn't be as stubborn, I guess. In all of my interactions, none of them were offended. And, most of them pulled for the team. So, if that's my flag, or my statue, I'm good with it... even if it comes down, which it is going to come down. Everyone is happy!