“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
Are the females here offended by the company named Hooters?
Because everyone has their own arbitrary line. And that's all it is, arbitrary.Why isn't that enough?
There's a retired chief of one of the Native American tribes here in Virginia whose gone on record stating he'd be offended if they DO change the name. If 10% of the native american population felt that they'd be upset if the name WAS changed....would that somehow counter the other 10% for you? Since apparently 10% of a populatoin feeling a certain way is enough for you.
But to an even greater extent, the issue with the 10% isn't so much a "do it/don't do it" thing...but rather it highlights the dishonesty by many who attempt to paint this as though it's offensive to native americans as a GROUP. No, in reality, this is offensive to a small portion of native americans. It's entirely reasonable for someone to decide, PERSONALLY, if that small portion is enough to warrant action. But it's NOT reasonable to attempt to take that small portion and portray them as the group as a whole in order to gain further sympathy and emotional weight to your side. It's against that kind of tactic that the "10%" number is most often meant to combat.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
. . . Snyder and others associated with the team have long argued that the Redskins name is used with respect and honor and is a source of pride among many American Indians.https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-pa...210155449.html
The ruling involves six uses of the Redskins name trademarked by the team from 1967 to 1990. It does not apply to the team's American Indian head logo.
If it stands, the team will still be free to use the name but will lose a lot of its ability to protect its financial interests. It will be more difficult for the team to go after others who print the Redskins name on sweatshirts, jerseys or other gear without permission.
"Joe in Peoria is going to have a pretty good argument that he could put the 'Redskins' name on some T-shirt," said Brad Newberg, a copyright law expert in Virginia.
Newberg estimated that the ruling, if upheld, could cost the team tens of millions of dollars per year. Forbes magazine puts the value of the Redskins franchise at $1.7 billion and says $145 million of that is attributable to the team's brand. . . . .
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
What if Donald Sterling owned the Redskins?
Originally Posted by Jerry