Rocky Landing
-
Posts
7,276 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rocky Landing
-
-
Seriously? You would go to a Native American reservation and intentionally insult them with the worst word used to describe them? And then "dare them" to stop you??? Why? Are you a sociopath?I don't know where one is around here, but I would. I'd dare them to stop me.
-
I live in California, and there's a lot of indian casinos here.The NCIA should really put its money where its mouth is by convincing its members to stop watching/supporting the NFL. My guess is they know most american indians aren't willing to take it that far.
It is also quite comical that the two indian nations speaking out about the Redskins name are located in California and New York. Both states where commercial casinos are prohibited. Both states with liberal back bones. There is a lot to gain politically by turning up the heat on a questionable entity like the nfl.
-
Hard to argue with that. I'm really not sure why anyone would.
-
Maybe he wasn't used to EJ being so close to the mark?http://www.wgr550.co....php?pid=406523
Watkins let a pass go right through his hands! This guy is a bust. I knew it.
-
Not a lot of talk on here about how EJ is doing. From the few tweets I have read, it sounds like he has been a bit underwhelming, so far. Am I overreacting? Or is this the 700lb gorilla in the room?
-
And their last name to Williams.I think all players should change their first name to Bill
-
This is exactly the kind of sentiment that illustrates how divisive the man is.Clearly written by a liberal who dislikes Trump. Frankly, Buffalo fans would benefit more from Trump being President than they would as him being the Bills Owner.
-
Trumps public persona has been grist for media ridicule for over two decades now. He has long been a parody of himself. In my opinion, a Trump ownership would be a PR nightmare. The scant national attention our team does get will be overshadowed by whatever bloviating nonsense Trump feels should be focused on. In a Trump-owned team, the most important person, and the most visible person, will always be Trump.
I see him as a magnet for parody, as well as an utterly divisive character. In his most recent bid for the republican presidential nomination, he showed himself to be both divisive, and a political weather vane. I absolutely don't trust him. And, I fear our team would become a laughing stock.
-
Honestly, I couldn't take this thread seriously after I read reason #1. How many times has Trump filed for bankruptcy?Everyone has their own ideal situation for the owner but here is why you should want Donald Trump as the next owner...
1) He does not take failure as an option.
2) He does not take sh**from anyone
3) You want Rivalries back in Buffalo? This guy is liable to talk sh** about every divisional opponent and their owner. Oh and outside of the division, ESPECIALLY Jerry Jones because he hates other people with almost as much money as he has.
4) He will NEVER be called cheap. In fact I think he likes to overspend to get what he wants.
5) He has enough common sense to be hands off. He's not a football guy and he knows it. He will hire the right faculty and if they don't perform it's chopping block.
6) I think the NFL needs character and Trump is a character I'd enjoy watching in press conferences on his team. He's going to tell it how it is and not sugar coat it. We need more of that.
7) He has stated his intentions of keeping the team in Buffalo, he sees the importance of the fan base and how detrimental it is to the city.
8) I think everyone who sees Galisano as a better option should look at what he did when he owned the Sabres. Yes, he kept him here and we're all thankful for that but he had no win now mentality and it showed.
TRUMP for Owner in 2014... Now for all the haters on why my opinion sucks...
-
1,200 yards would be great, but not likely. There have only been a handful of rookie WRs to hit 1,200 in the history of the NFL. I'm probably in the minority here (I usually am), but I don't expect a huge year from Watkins, for a number of reasons.
1) There is EJ. (I'm not bashing here) Having missed as much of the last season as he has, he is practically still a rookie. Assuming he steps it up, as we all hope he will, he still isn't going to be a polished vet. A rookie QB to a rookie WR doesn't equal 1,200 yards.
2) As talented as Watkins is, there will still be growing pains. I will admit, the only thing I have seen of Watkins is highlight reel material. That being said, we all know that defenses are a lot tougher in the NFL. Quite a few of Watkins' highlights included blown coverage that just would not have happened in the NFL.
3) If we see a lot of the three, or even four wide sets that some people are predicting (I hope we do), then let's hope that EJ spreads the ball around. A lot.
4) We have a talented stable of receivers. Assuming that EJ does step it up, I personally think that Woods is poised for a 1,000 yard season. I also think that if Mike Williams can keep his head on straight (Marrone obvious thinks he can), he can be a serious impact player. I understand why Lovie Smith dropped him, but he had some amazing plays with the Bucs. Add to that, CJ (who has great hands), and Chandler, who netted the most receiving yards last year.
Still-- no buyer's remorse.
-
Gotcha...Um...I don't care if the leaders are offended, I want to know what the people they represent think themselves?
-
DC Tom was referring to the Native American nations, not our own. It just seems like an inconsistency to me that he would listen to "the opinions of the Native American nations" (his words), but not their leaders. And, had I not posted that article directly after he had made the comment, I don't believe he would have drawn the distinction. Indeed, I suspect that if the leaders of the Native American nations supported his position, he would be quoting them.Because the President's opinion isn't mine? Thought that'd be obvious.
-
And what is your excuse for ignoring the "leaders" of said "nations?""Nations." Not "leaders."
Jesus...
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/27/native-american-leaders-speak-out-against-redskins-name/I figured as much. Native American values and mores as discussed by pasty-white people who've never listened to them to begin with? I'd rather rely on the opinions of the Native American nations than I would the opinion of the US Senate.
-
-
I feel entitled to post this because I'm 1/32 Irish.So not supporting the name change means I think I'm better than Native Americans?
Interesting leap.
I can show you pictures of people with green beer and shamrocks on St Patrick's day. That's the exact same thing as dressing up as a cartoon Indian (except for the red face paint).
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/7/7372/original/700.jpg?3640
-
That's a hard pill for just about anybody to swallow.Such bad logic.
"Oh, if it were bad, then it wouldn't exist, right? Must be fine!"
This kind of garbage mentality is what inhibits positive change in the world.
It's good that you understand the Washington Spics would be offensive, but if you can't draw the parallel from that to Redskins you are missing the point.
It wouldn't be appropriate to name a team the Washington Black Guys, the Washington African Americans, the Washington Colored People, or the Washington N*gg*rs. Even if you want to argue that Redskins isn't offensive (which is absurd do you think Asians want to be referred to collectively as Yellowskins?), it's still not appropriate for a team name.
What happens in these type of threads is that people who are mildly bigoted try to come up with some twisted logic that allows them to support social injustice without having to admit or confront the reality of their world views.
Sometimes it is mind blowing that people can look at an image like the one below and not see any sort of issue.
Chief Wahoo just wants to support his team, what's the big deal right?
Well played, sir!If the history of this nation has proven anything, it's that the government knows what's best for the Native Americans and acts in their interest.
[/sarcasm, for the sarcasm-impaired]
-
There will be no legislation passed that will force the Redskins to change their name. The Redskins name is protected under the first amendment. This has been one of the reasons that legal challenges from Native American groups have failed.Ok, so we have phased out many native american nicknames in high school and college. These programs (i have to believe) were named as a sign of respect and strength not as a racist thing. Now the politicians will legislate out the Redskins name so we can completely forget about Native American anything. It's so stupid. This small minority of "political correctness" will basically remove the name from anything. Instead of keeping tradition alive and the importance of our 1st generation we will make all names obsolete and remove from our consciousness. good job.
-
No. Go ahead and call black people "colored," and see how many friends you make.Oh, context. Well, then. That makes it all just swell, I guess.
Okay everyone. Listen up. Referring to black people as "colored" is bad, unless you're colored, then it's okay, but only in context, so if you hear about the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, please just don't refer to it as that at all and we'll be fine. Also, stop referring to the Congressional Black Caucus, unless you're a black congressman or congresswoman or congressperson, in which case it's okay so long as it is within context. But otherwise, don't mention it.
Please return here daily to get updated on things that offend people who need to be offended by something so they have somethig to complain about.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Every thin-skinned fool with a keyboard.
-
ContextNational Assosiation for the Advancement of Colored People
-
1) What???Well this seems easy.
1. I thought we were ignoring the origin of the name and the intent behind it. The only thing that matters is it's definition remember?
2. Brown people were just as oppressed as the Indians (albeit in very different ways).
3. http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/brown .
4. Would you walk up to a colored person and call them a Brown person?
I agree the whole argument about the Browns is absurd. It's ridiculous, its off base, and lastly it's an argument that doesn't need to be made. Same goes for the Redskins. Let the team be, they clearly don't mean to offend anyone. If a word offends you so much, don't watch the team. You don't have a right to not be offended.
2) Did you even read my response?
3) Does not apply to the conversation AND YOU KNOW IT.
4) I would call someone a brown person BEFORE I CALLED THEM COLORED!!!
-
Ok, well, this seems like such an easy argument to make that it doesn't even seem worth the time, but here goes:It is the name of a football team. There is no reason to call a Native American a redskin. Just like there is no reason to call me a bill. My names not Bill.
Do you think Green Bay Packers refers to all Packers?
Do you think Oakland Raiders refers to all Raiders out there?
Do you think Cleveland Browns refers to all Browns out there?
Edit: Let's hone in on Cleveland Browns.
Let's say the Washington Redskins change their name to Washington Indians.
I want you to make an argument to me, why the Cleveland Browns should keep their name, and should not be the next target of political correctness.
The Browns were named after their beloved general manager and first coach Mike Brown who, to the best of my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong here) was NOT massacred by the United States military. The Redskins, on the other hand, are named after a derogatory term used to describe a race of people who WERE massacred by the United States Military.
If, in the future, the term "Brown" becomes synonymous with, I suppose, brown people (I assume that is your assertion?) then Cleveland will have their own choice to make. That is as much as I can predict, as there is no historical perspective for the term "brown" being used as a negative, racial epithet.
All of this seems so blatantly obvious to me that I am wondering why I am taking the time to type it. So, this may have to be my last post on the subject. The whole argument has drifted into the absurd.
-
I was expanding on what I thought was an interesting, but otherwise irrelevant point. As far as whether or not the term "redskin" could be taken as an insult, would you ever call a Native American a "redskin" to their face? I wouldn't.But let me understand this: Someone can make fun of Native Americans so long as they acknowledge the wrongs that were committed against them?
But the Washington Redskins can't keep their team name because they acknowledge the wrongs committed against Native Americans, and have no intention of insulting Native Americans, but their name could be construed as an insult so.....
Would it make you happy if they acknowledged that "Redskins" could be taken as an insult?
-
Interestingly enough, the use of the swastika, or the term "Nazi" is a crime in Germany-- which would be an obvious violation of the first amendment in this country. Also, am I missing something? Is the term "Viking" actually offensive to somebody?Neither. Simply pointing out the flaw in his argument against the term Viking and the because the NFL isn't played in a Nordic country the term isn't offensive. I'm pretty sure you'd offend some people by calling the team the Nazi's and the NFL is played in Germany or surrounding countries
2014 Bills OTAs Part 3 (June 9th - June 12th)
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
btw- if we can't be concerned by a player's poor performance because it's "just OTAs," then what's the point of getting psyched by other player's stand-out performances during the same OTAs? Why pay attention at all?