You must not have been paying attention to recent events in Iraq. And Saddam was just an arrogant bully. We left, job not done country is devolving into hell.
I don't call that a win. Stalemate is not a win.
In reality all they would need to show is a group which is disparaged over it and I'm sure they can line up people for that even if it is a small few. They would lose a lawsuit like this, especially with the government backing up the Patent Office.
It's an abuse of government power IMO in this case.
Sorry if this seems ridiculous, but I believe that is where we are heading. Could the Giant's have their trademark pulled if people over 7 feet thought is was offensive? Slippery slope.
Are we talking about the term "Redskin" here...or not?So we should never mention the negative components of accurate history? You did fail to highlight that qualifier you know, which makes your characterization rather intellectually dishonest. Do you feel that it is not right to mention the negative components of history of people other than Native Americans too? That should be off limits? Or is it just the red man who should be exempt from having to deal with their less than commendable past while it is okay that the rest of us know about ours?
My bitch about it was we left before it was over.I've been paying attention. We left the country with a running government holding independent elections. We left the country with a government in place that felt they had everything under control. That was a win. What happens now has nothing to do with whether or not we won the war in Iraq. By every measure we did.
But if you have a bitch to make about it, take it up with Obama. Just one more thing to kick his ass over.
Why? Why is it a racist slur? It certainly isn't a racist slur when I say Washington Redskins. It certainly isn't a racist slur when I quote a movie line that 'the redskins are coming'. It is a reference to a people sometimes represented historically as savages--which was accurate in many cases--or the 'noble redskin' which was accurate in many cases. "Redskin or red man" is certainly more descriptive of the people than is 'Indian' or 'Native American' just as 'white man' or 'white' or 'black man' or 'black' is more descriptive of a people than is "European" or "African American" which so few of us are that it is statistically insignificant.
Why not promote the positive image within the word instead of demanding that it be seen as racially disparaging or any other connotation. Should people be embarrassed or feel denigrated because their skin is of a particular predominant hue more than any other people?
Are we talking about the term "Redskin" here...or not?
The term STILL HAS negative, racist components to it, WHICH YOU ADMITTED TO.....and yet you cannot bring yourself to admit it should not be used by a NFL team (I suppose if a NFL team was named "The Washington Niggers" you would not have an issue with that....even while you admit it has racist connotations) and instead make the "everything is not perfect" argument to distract from the debate........and to top it off, you accuse me of not being intellectually honest!
Good grief.
Not surprising, is there just one branch of government that the Obama administration hasn't politicized ?
Anyone know ?
Even the U.S. Patent Office has gone PC.
What is your issue with Native Americans? Savages????? That's an accurate term???? Do you not realize how incredibly racist it is to classify an entire race of people as savages because they didn't live in stone houses and own guns? Sheesh..I suppose you think that they should be grateful to be genocided by a much nobler race.
And then you conflate Redman with Redskin. Seriously? If you can't understand why someone else would find the term offensive, then you pretty much lack any human empathy.
I just asked someone I've known for 30 years who is full blooded Chippewa as well as an advocate of Native American rights, reparation and all that stuff about this. Her sentiments mirror mine. "Red-Skin is about as offensive as "White Dude" isAre we talking about the term "Redskin" here...or not?
The term STILL HAS negative, racist components to it, WHICH YOU ADMITTED TO.....and yet you cannot bring yourself to admit it should not be used by a NFL team (I suppose if a NFL team was named "The Washington Niggers" you would not have an issue with that....even while you admit it has racist connotations) and instead make the "everything is not perfect" argument to distract from the debate........and to top it off, you accuse me of not being intellectually honest!
Good grief.
APACHERAT!?!?! That's an offensive name, I demand you change it!
So we should never mention the negative components of accurate history? You did fail to highlight that qualifier you know, which makes your characterization rather intellectually dishonest. Do you feel that it is not right to mention the negative components of history of people other than Native Americans too? That should be off limits? Or is it just the red man who should be exempt from having to deal with their less than commendable past while it is okay that the rest of us know about ours?
I lean left on quite a few things however I find this whole thing retarded.
The AIM (American Indian Movement) is supposely going after the U.S. Army next since all Army helicopters are named after American Indian tribes.
After that, I'm next on the hit list.
I feel that the US government just got itself a HUGE civil lawsuit from the owners of the Washington Redskins. I'm not a patent attorney, but I feel sure that 'not hurting someone's feelings' aren't mentioned in the requirements for a trademark.
APACHERAT!?!?! That's an offensive name, I demand you change it!
The is no right for any company to have a trademark. There is no requirement that any company have a trademark. A trademark gives a company the "benefit" to sue to protect their image or word in federal court.
The DC team lost that privelege.
I find your use of the word "retarded" offensive. Couldn't you have used "mentally challenged"?
Didn't the article state that the patent office had no power to prevent the redskins from continuing to use their name.
How about if he is Apache? Does he still have to change it? (Disclaimer: I know you were being amicably sarcastic.)
The AIM (American Indian Movement) is supposely going after the U.S. Army next since all Army helicopters are named after American Indian tribes.
After that, I'm next on the hit list.
I find your use of the word "retarded" offensive. Couldn't you have used "mentally challenged"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?