Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Washington'g NFL team continues to troll

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by mraynrand View Post
    enlighten us. Spell it out.
    Too good calling me PC! LOL!

    Can't believe I'm doing this, but in case some of you don't see how publishing that photo could cause some people to get upset (I highly doubt this, I might add) the team sanctioned publishing of a picture of a Redskinette dressed as a squaw is going to stoke the fire that's already started there. Not that they seem to care.
    --
    Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...

    Comment


    • #17
      I'm with Mad.

      These chickies are dressed for a polar expedition.

      Let's get a little skin workin' here.

      Comment


      • #18
        I understand that arabs might be offended by this but if you're going to wear short short, you got to have camel toe.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Guiness View Post
          Too good calling me PC! LOL!

          Can't believe I'm doing this, but in case some of you don't see how publishing that photo could cause some people to get upset (I highly doubt this, I might add) the team sanctioned publishing of a picture of a Redskinette dressed as a squaw is going to stoke the fire that's already started there. Not that they seem to care.
          I didn't call you PC.

          How is a cheerleader dressed as a squaw offensive?
          "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mraynrand View Post
            I didn't call you PC.

            How is a cheerleader dressed as a squaw offensive?
            Christ you can be a bastard!

            True enough, you didn't (directly), but the topic was raised and I'd submit that you inferred it. In a fashion that gives you plausible deniability and continue the argument, of course.

            Regardless, I just find this amusing. Mostly I believe that it's impossible the person posting the picture did not know it would be inflammatory, and did so despite, or perhaps because of, that.
            --
            Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Guiness View Post
              Too good calling me PC! LOL!

              Can't believe I'm doing this, but in case some of you don't see how publishing that photo could cause some people to get upset (I highly doubt this, I might add) the team sanctioned publishing of a picture of a Redskinette dressed as a squaw is going to stoke the fire that's already started there. Not that they seem to care.
              You're the one who brought it up... why would you bring it up, unless you are PC offended??

              First thing I thought was - the chick in the squaw outfit is smokin hot.
              Second thought?? - the asian chicks are entirely hittable.
              Third thought?? - the black chick on the left is okay.
              Fourth thought?? - the chick in yellow is thick and muggly.

              Your first thought?? 'Someone will get their panties in a twist'?? WTF?? Are you gay??
              wist

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Guiness View Post
                Christ you can be a bastard!

                True enough, you didn't (directly), but the topic was raised and I'd submit that you inferred it. In a fashion that gives you plausible deniability and continue the argument, of course.

                Regardless, I just find this amusing. Mostly I believe that it's impossible the person posting the picture did not know it would be inflammatory, and did so despite, or perhaps because of, that.
                I didn't imply a damn thing. I wanted someone who posted this to explain what is offensive.

                Perhaps the point that is being made by the person who posted this is to illustrate how non-offensive it is (any more than cowboy cheerleaders, for example), unless you find scantily-clad women offensive.

                This is manufactured inflammation, by the ruling Left class that needs people to be continually inflamed, to distract from what they're doing and to keep the people constantly agitated. We have always been at war with Oceana.

                For something like the squaw outfit to be offensive, someone had to manufacture outrage, because there is nothing inherently offensive about Indian/Native American outfits, and there is no intent here to denigrate anyone.

                You (leftists, not Guiness) don't get to decide what is outrageous! You are NOT a God!
                "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

                Comment


                • #23
                  lol.
                  C.H.U.D.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by mraynrand View Post
                    I didn't imply a damn thing. I wanted someone who posted this to explain what is offensive.

                    Perhaps the point that is being made by the person who posted this is to illustrate how non-offensive it is (any more than cowboy cheerleaders, for example), unless you find scantily-clad women offensive.

                    This is manufactured inflammation, by the ruling Left class that needs people to be continually inflamed, to distract from what they're doing and to keep the people constantly agitated. We have always been at war with Oceana.

                    For something like the squaw outfit to be offensive, someone had to manufacture outrage, because there is nothing inherently offensive about Indian/Native American outfits, and there is no intent here to denigrate anyone.

                    You (leftists, not Guiness) don't get to decide what is outrageous! You are NOT a God!
                    I didn't say offensive, I said they were trolling. That's the major point I was trying to get across, the Redskins posted this despite (or perhaps, because) knowing it was inflammatory, hence my 'trolling' remark.
                    --
                    Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Isn't it a historical (the 50 years) visualization of the team's cheerleaders?

                      Now they have to whitewash their history too?

                      I see it as a dramatic visual of how they heve become more enlightened over time. I can't wait to see next year......
                      After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I still think they should rename the team the Whiteskins. I mean White is the only color on HMDA information on credit applications so f it lets embrace our whiteness and have a team. It could be an insurance salesman, father of three, little overweight, depressed suburb guy as the mascot State Farm would get the naming rights on the field. Also the team has to start with 2 wins per year because hell we are white and we have white privilege so its just like our "being white male" check we get every month...
                        Swede: My expertise in this area is extensive. The essential difference between a "battleship" and an "aircraft carrier" is that an aircraft carrier requires five direct hits to sink, but it takes only four direct hits to sink a battleship.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Guiness View Post
                          I didn't say offensive, I said they were trolling. That's the major point I was trying to get across, the Redskins posted this despite (or perhaps, because) knowing it was inflammatory, hence my 'trolling' remark.
                          It's only inflammatory to pantywaste pussies... so why even bring it up??
                          wist

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by HowardRoark View Post
                            Isn't it a historical (the 50 years) visualization of the team's cheerleaders?

                            Now they have to whitewash their history too?

                            I see it as a dramatic visual of how they heve become more enlightened over time. I can't wait to see next year......
                            Not much left to the imagination
                            "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Guiness View Post
                              I didn't say offensive, I said they were trolling. That's the major point I was trying to get across, the Redskins posted this despite (or perhaps, because) knowing it was inflammatory, hence my 'trolling' remark.
                              anger, offend - sorry I can't keep it straight
                              "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Keep that politics shit out of this Aynrand or join your fallen brothers. Final warning.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X