Bob Costas, Pasty Guy Offended By Word Native ‘t Offended By

, a PC libtard, reared his ugly smugness again on Sunday.  He decided to school everyone who isn’t offended by the ‘ on why they are wrong … including Native Americans.

After starting off telling everyone that the vast majority of Native Americans aren’t offended by the ‘ (and they aren’t), he went on to say that their opinion doesn’t matter, and that ‘Redskins’ is actually highly .  Apparently, Costas thinks Native Americans are dumb and naive that they need him to protect their fragile psyche.  So he’s stepping up to be offended for them.

The only survey done on the subject that specifically asked Native Americans how they felt showed 90% didn’t think the name ‘Redskins’ was offensive.  As I illustrated recently, everyone except Native Americans are offended by this name.  Most notably, pasty white do-gooders like Costas.

I’ve also pointed out that in my many discussions on this topic, Native Americans believe that people like Costas are attempting to erase Native Americans from our culture, and they think it’s motivated by racial discrimination.

It’s hard to argue the claim that people like Costas are against Native Americans when he goes on national television and tells them that they are wrong for not being offended by something that only they have the authority to decide is .

Black (not so funny) comedian W. Kamau Bell recently said that ‘can’t say what’s racist or not’ when it comes to blacks being offended.  Ok, if that’s the , then whites, blacks, asians, etc. can’t say what’s racist or not when it comes to Native Americans. So … shut up about it.

Costas’ logic to support his argument was to make the point that if we go back in time (that would be the 1600’s btw), ‘Redskin’ was a derogatory term used to describe Native Americans.

So what?

Hoosier was a derogatory term used to describe people from Indiana, and now we wear that moniker with pride.  Retard and retarded are perfectly legitimate mechanical terms that foolishly decided was offensive only recently.  Can we go back to just 10 years ago and reclaim retard’s legitimate definition like Costas is suggesting with Redskin?

How about if we reclaim the definition of faggot and fag while we are at it.  It originally had nothing to do with homosexuals, and isn’t used primarily to disparage them now anyway.  Yet we can’t call someone a fag without being accused of being a homophobe.  Even though the word is rarely used to describe homosexuals.

South Park explained all of this perfectly:

 

 

The professionally offended are destroying our society, culture, and language while stoking bigotry none exist. It’s time to hold their feet to the fire.

 

UPDATE:

Mofo Politics has a petition to Costas change his offensive name.

 

 

Exactly Would Justify To Pacifist Hordes

I’ve often asked this question in my writings and on my show. Most often, in discussions with ignorant about Saddam being the innocent victim of Bush/Cheney aggression.

No clear answer has been given by pacifists to the question: “What would justify war?”

The pacifist hordes often give conflicting answers.  For example, Ron Paul (who claims a form of pacifism) was interviewed by John Stossel in 2007, and was asked what would justify a war.

If you’re attacked, you have a and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.

That sounds , but I found Paul’s answer interesting, and vague.  What constitutes an attack?  Is it on your property, your citizens, or must it be within your national borders?  Pacifists have been unable to clarify this position for me over the years.

What does this have to do with Iraq, and my greater point later?

Before the 2003 Iraq invasion, Saddam was repeatedly ‘attacking’ the US and her allies in a little discussed conflict in the no fly zones.  Yet Ron Paul, and others, have frequently said that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq.  So … shooting/attacking US citizens, and destroying US property is not an attack?

I’m of a different viewpoint, and my training to invade Iraq under proved that even Slick Willy agreed with me.

So why bring this up now?  Iraq was a resounding success, and Saddam is .  Because we may be heading for another war.

Tensions have been rising with for years.  The killing of Osama bin Laden only catapulted tensions to the mainstream.  During the aftermath of that operation, we clearly learned that Pakistan is no friend of the US. Yet, something far worse was kept from us.

NY Times:

A group of American military officers and Afghan officials had just finished a five-hour meeting with their Pakistani hosts in a village schoolhouse settling a border dispute when they were ambushed — by the Pakistanis.

Yep.  Ambushed by the Pakistanis … ahem … allegedly.

Maj. Larry J. Bauguess lost his life in the attack.

This blatant act of war was covered up by both the Pakistanis and Washington.  In fact, Pakistan has been well-known to retaliate for collateral damage by US forces with open attacks on US personnel.

Some will blame America for the incident, and say that Pakistan was just retaliating for their losses.  An interesting point, albeit one that ignores Pakistan’s hindering our intelligence, and often openly helping the enemy against us.

Then there’s .  We know they are sending weapons across the border into Iraq to help kill Americans.  There have even been clashes with US and Iranian military forces.  Something that was also kept quiet, and has happened more than once.

Right about now someone will say that none of this would happen if we weren’t there to begin with, so we are still the aggressor.  That’s about as intelligent as inviting someone over for , and then calling them a burglar.

Am I calling for war with Pakistan or Iran?  No.

Were those two incidents justification for war in my opinion?  Yes.

I’m saddened that neither party has an option for president that touts legit military credentials.  We have, after all, been at war for a decade with no truly experienced military veteran in the White House.   forward, we may not have an option for peace either.  It makes me wonder … how different things would be if a competent military commander were also sitting in the White House.