Joe Miner

Pictures of her mom would help me know just what kind of assets her family has given her to help make her famous.

Who in the history of this planet has been most famous for using planes as weapons? That's right, the dirty Japs. We drop two nukes, they attack two targets. Coincidence? As soon as I finish my Youtube video, the world will know the truth about 911.

Doesn't the Bills' season usually end in Oct?

Dick jokes man. Dick jokes.

It's hard to shut down a penal system. The sudden release of prisoners could be quite messy.

Can he play with a cast of some kind? Not like he was catching any INT's anyway. It could also reduce holding calls.

Ben Affleck - Daredevil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-emOpTpwTA&list=PLD520FFF718007C94

We might need an official TBD forum hall of fame list.

Is this the PPP version of last post wins?

At times yes, at other times I've seen him play exactly like he's played today. He's just not a good NFL CB. Not in the past, not today, and he won't be good in the future either. I personally like Butler as the #2 CB. He' not great, and I only have a couple of preseason games to have watched him, but at this point I'd rather give him a shot than watch another year of McKelvin fail at the position. Keep McKelvin and Brooks in the slots, and let McKelvin return punts. Cut Rogers, he's worse than McKelvin. This is a game that shows what our DB's look like when we're not getting any pressure. I sure hope the gameplan today was supposed to test the DB's. If we have to rely on Searcy covering anyone this year we're in trouble.

McKelvin has been "rusty" at CB his whole NFL career.

Don't forget pedophile. If I remember correctly, I think his last wife was 6, but he did wait until she was 9 to consummate the marriage.

The point that you've come away from so far in our few posts has resulted in "freedom"? Really? That's one of the most ridiculous abuses of logic I've ever seen. Either you honestly think that, in which case I pity you, or you are simply trolling at this point. After laughing my way through your response, my kindest belief about you is that you haven't understood much of what I've said in this thread. Again...reading comprehension can be a useful skill to learn. After several strawman arguments and a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of anything I've said, you have now moved on to some hair brained tangent about this really being about freedom. Good job on that left turn. The previous poster was right, this thread should be closed. It's flown way past any point of actual conversation and has buried itself deep in the realm of stupidity.

Trash

I posted an article, feel free to prove it is incorrect. But neither the article nor I ever said it didn't originate from the white men. What was said was that it didn't originate as a disparaging term. If this is an example of your reading comprehension, I can wait to read your refute of the link I posted.

I say trickle the !@#$ you on up the chain. I personally hold Chan more responsible than Wanny.

So you do believe that a simple Google search is an effective way of gathering useful and meaningful data? Good to know. Yes, you did miss a few of the points I made. I have no idea if you are a racist or not. But I guess reading comprehension is something you can add to your list of things to learn.

Well, you've messed up the quoting structure, so good luck following the discussion. You are arguing the "my" definition of redskin is obsolete. I'm telling you that since outside of a ridiculous Google search you disparaging definition is obsolete as well. No one uses the term redskin anymore. The only time it's used is when referring to an NFL team. The word itself has a history, why you choose to pick a specific time period in that history and cling to it as the word's definition while at the same time telling me that words evolve makes no sense. You want to let it evolve to being a racist term, but are unwilling to let it evolve to referring to a silly football team. A random Google search isn't proof of anything. If you think it is you have issues. And you missed the point as well. Any word can be offensive. Why is it worse to use a racial word in an offensive manner than any other word in an offensive manner. You are the one placing so much emphasis on race. Hateful speech like what you quoted shouldn't be acceptable to normal people regardless of whether there was a racial description in there or not. So if the intention of the word redskin is now to refer to a football team, what's the problem with it? The only problem is that you are still beholden to wanting to feel victimized by the term. If someone calls me a cracker or a gringo, or honky, or whatever should I be more upset that race was indicated in the term or should I be more upset that their intention was to be rude, mean, and disrespectful. Who are the people that care most about race? Racists.

I haven't seen the practices you have, but so far the preseason games don't look good for Troup to me. Check out the goalline stand (or lack thereof) on 4th down from game 2. I could be wrong, it's not like I have a personal stake in Troup or Branch. Whichever one the Bills decide to keep is fine with me.

Except that's where you're wrong. It's not in reference to a disparaging term. The original term didn't disparage anyone. Why are you choosing to associate it with that time period instead of the time period that predates that when it was a term that Native Americans used to describe themselves? When did the Washington Redskins time stamp the origin of their name? A Google search as proof that the term is still widely used disparagingly? Really? Google? I also like how in the second quote "example" that the word redskin is the disparaging term, but apparently we're ok with cocksucks. In fact, how many terms or words are used disparagingly in those examples? Would saying any of that crap be that much better without the word redskin in it? It's not words that are bad, it's the intentions. Hell, you could probably do a Google search and find that the term Wednesday is used disparagingly.

I wonder if Butler will eventually take the #2 CB spot from McLovin?

Since this thread based on sweeping generalizations, here's one for you. No one uses the term to refer to scalping or mutilating native Americans today. Hell, no one really uses it as any type of reference to native Americans at all. Basically the only time it's used today is in regards to the NFL team. So why is society able to change the word negatively, but seemingly unable to change it to something as neutral as a football team? Can words only change once? My quote is from the article you linked.

And yet the term predates that period in history. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

Maybe Obama can stop by Letterman. Should be good for a few laughs about those stupid republicans.

I don't believe you can take a racial discrimination case to court and be that successful if you are not of the race that is being discriminated against. Check the Paula Dean court case for a reference. So as a whitey, I can't sue the NFL or the Redskins, or anyone for racially discriminating against American Indians. So it only makes sense that the case is brought by Native Americans, they have the best, and possibly only potential to win.