Jets tried trading for Cousins

Good. This chump is braindead on 10-20% of his throws.

 

Why would Washington trade their starting QB?

 

He became their starter when RG3 suffered a concussion. Not because he outplayed anybody.

 

You understand he would be replacing Geno right? 10-20% would be a blessing.

 

Doubt we would of given up much for him and the Skins probably valued him highly with Robs injury record.


Would of been an upgrade on Geno tho'

 

Why would the racists trade him? He's the only qb on their roster.

 

Racists? Guess that means the Braves and Chiefs are as well

 

Only if your too retarded to tell the difference between a title and a slur.

 

Like the United States Federal Government. And since it's the Executive branch, that is your President, directly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

When it's in the WaPo, that goes away with one phone call from the top guy.

Period.

 

I like the joke that the owner wanted to drop Washington from the name since the legislators in DC are a pack of dirtbags.

 

It's funny that Indians don't see the Redskins name as a "slur."

 

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

Page 1

68% of Native Americans find it racist.

 

PHEW, THAT was a close call! .... Cousins is a career backup at best, and it just goes to show how bad the Skins are at QB that he's starting for them.

 

We refer to people as "black" or "white" all the time, so what's so bad about "Redskins"?

 

The difference is the majority of the people it refers to think it's racist.

 

The thing with surveys is that the responses one gets is usually predicated upon the way the questions are asked. Based on that article, it is clear that the questions were not asked in a "neutral" manner. They were asked in a slanted or biased manner, making this an unscientific survey. Further the author assumes that all the whites who said they were neutral did that because they didn't want to be seen as "racist" and were really against it, so he lumps them in with the objectors. Again, that's unscientific, biased to reflect his opinion, and makes the survey worthless.

Was the term "redskin" originally a racial description and even a slur to some, and perhaps most? No doubt. Has our history been one of discrimination against people of color, especially the American Indian? Definitely. Our treatment of the American Indians has been shameful. We broke treaty after treaty in the name of greed. Heck even recently, our Congress voted to give away a big part of a sacred area of an Apache reservation in Arizona (or New Mexico) to a foreign mining company to open a copper mine.

My initial response was based on the fact that in the previous times this issues has arisen, all the data I have seen said that Indians didn't object to the name. In fairness, perhaps that data was slanted as well. The thing is the name is not used in a derogatory fashion now. It is a symbol of the proud, fierce warriors that Indians were. In general, I think people are too thin-skinned and take offense too easily these days. Still, considering our history of mistreating the Indians, if they truly find the term objectionable, the name should be changed.

 

You sure that's true? I thought I heard somewhere that most Native Americans have no problem with it.

 

I posted the link in this thread.

 

I'm standing with the 32% minority. Their voice matters too.