- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I've seen this article in the Washington Times mentioned multiple times. Why is it relevant how many "public complaints" the name garnered? The patents were revoked as part of a lawsuit. Why even mention the lack of "public complaints" when they are clearly not part of the process to begin with?
I've seen this article in the Washington Times mentioned multiple times. Why is it relevant how many "public complaints" the name garnered? The patents were revoked as part of a lawsuit. Why even mention the lack of "public complaints" when they are clearly not part of the process to begin with?
Apparently, the Indians who sued and won the case don't count as people?
I knew it wouldn't take long for that BS claim to appear... I fully expected it before we got to page 2.
The original story from the Washington Times includes the following:
The board made its ruling last month based on a legal challenge from Amanda Blackhorse and four others, who petitioned the USPTO against the Redskins, calling the team name offensive to American Indians. After the ruling, she called the decision a “great victory for Native Americans and all Americans,” saying the team’s name was “racist and derogatory.”
So, do you think that they would say "zero complaints" and include that paragraph saying the ruling took place because of someone complaining, if they were trying to pull a fast one? lol
Use a little common sense man.
It is not common sense for someone with a complaint to sue? I think that is what you do when you have a complaint.
I'd saw a lawsuit counts as a pretty big ****ing complaint.
Yet another exercise in persecution complex masturbation.
Since all redskins memorabilia will increase in value when the team changes their name, I hope that this liberal agenda succeeds, so I can make a ton of money off of this in a few decades! Let's hear it for the 1% (the 1% of course being liberal rage junkies who make mountains out of nonexistent mold hills)!!!!!!
Because it is NOT derogatory to 'the Indian people'...it is derogatory to a few Native Americans and a bunch of rebel without a clue liberals.Apparently, the Indians who sued and won the case don't count as people? The question is why they can't see that the term "redskins" is derogatory to the Indian people? After all it was us whites that made it that way to begin with.
Because it is NOT derogatory to 'the Indian people'...it is derogatory to a few Native Americans and a bunch of rebel without a clue liberals.
Oh no...Ive quite clearly defined why I have staked out a position on this subject numerous times. part of that reason includes the 90% of Indians that have said they arent offended by it, and those that think it is beyond ****ing moronic that with all of the very real problems facing the Indian nation THIS is the kinda **** people get spun up over. You must have missed that.... and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. So you've staked out a position on this issue based on not liking liberals?
Oh no...Ive quite clearly defined why I have staked out a position on this subject numerous times. part of that reason includes the 90% of Indians that have said they arent offended by it, and those that think it is beyond ****ing moronic that with all of the very real problems facing the Indian nation THIS is the kinda **** people get spun up over. You must have missed that.
Did you know the name 'Chiefs' is also offensive and that the 'plaintiffs' have declared their intent to target that name next, as well as the Indians, Braves, and every other Indian related name (except of course, the Indian schools with the mascots named 'Redskins').It's certainly not an issue dear to me, but I can understand why some find it offensive. I'm a Cleveland Indians fan, and protests have been routine for decades. The NFL's claim to tradition is certainly far more tenuous than the complainants', so I would say change the darn name already and end the debate.
I've seen this article in the Washington Times mentioned multiple times. Why is it relevant how many "public complaints" the name garnered? The patents were revoked as part of a lawsuit. Why even mention the lack of "public complaints" when they are clearly not part of the process to begin with?
Did you know the name 'Chiefs' is also offensive and that the 'plaintiffs' have declared their intent to target that name next, as well as the Indians, Braves, and every other Indian related name (except of course, the Indian schools with the mascots named 'Redskins').
Some people object to having a few bitter angry hate filled tyrants dictate life to others. And as it was proven that the Mascot and Logo were both designed by an Indian and approved of by the council of Indian chiefs...maybe its time for the vast vast vast majority of people, Indian and paleface alike, to tell those bitter angry hate filled little people to shut up and color.
Bitter, angry and hate-filled? Based on what? I might be inclined to agree if there were actually something at stake here. Rebranding a team is hardly unprecedented, nor is it likely to permanently mar Washington's franchise. But again, I'm not that concerned either way.
Rebranding a franchise is not unprecedented. But then again, that's like saying shutting down a business isn't unprecedented in relation to something like walmart suddenly closing up shop.
There is only one other instance in modern (post 1950) American professional sports where a team has undergone a substantial name change (not devil rays to rays for instance) while:
- Not moving to a new city
- Not returning to an old name
- Has had its name in the corresponding city for multiple decades
And that was also in Washington, with the bullets. If someone can come up with another one I'd love to hear it, but I'm not aware of them at this time. And the bullets, as anyone from DC can tell you, can not even be compared to the Redskins in this area or across the US. Assuming that the Redskins will follow a similar model as the Titans or the Ravens, for example, is rather foolish as you're looking at a VERY different situation.
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?