• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

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.

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.
 
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.
 
Bears also offend a portion of the gay community and don't get me started on the Canucks.
 
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.

Does anybody think the U.S. Patent office came up with this nonsense all on its own? Does anybody really believe that the U.S. Patent Office is not being used by people in high places to make brownie points with a particular constituency ahead of the up coming elections?
 
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?
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.
 
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.
My bitch about it was we left before it was 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?

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.
 
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.

I'm sorry. But if you cannot represent what I say honestly and without politically correct revisionism, we have nothing to discuss. Have a nice day.
 
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.
 
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.

APACHERAT!?!?! That's an offensive name, I demand you change it!
 
There's a lot of hurt feelings in this thread.
 
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 will tell you the same thing as I told Gimme. I did NOT classify an entire race of people as savages, but to deny that the Native American peoples had their savage side in their history would be absurd. It would be as absurd as saying that medieval Europeans were never brutal feudal lords or that 18th century descendants of Europeans never owned slaves. To acknowledge that am I saying that a whole race of people were or are slave owners or supporters of feudalism? Is saying that it is historically accurate that at least some black Americans descended from jungle tribes suggesting that an entire race of black people are jungle dwellers? A little intellectual honesty here please.
 
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.
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" is
 
APACHERAT!?!?! That's an offensive name, I demand you change it!

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.
 
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?

If they were the Washington Braves, I'd say let it be. If they were the Washington Creek, I'd say let it be. Hell, even if they were the Washington Tomahawks. I'd see no reason for change. But, Redskins? I can definitely see why a lot of people take issue with that.
 
I lean left on quite a few things however I find this whole thing retarded.

I find your use of the word "retarded" offensive. Couldn't you have used "mentally challenged"?
 
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 don't don't doubt that one bit. How many are offended, 5? 6?
 
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.

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.
 
APACHERAT!?!?! That's an offensive name, I demand you change it!

How about if he is Apache? Does he still have to change it? (Disclaimer: I know you were being amicably sarcastic.)
 
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.

They didn't lose it yet. They retain the trademark until all the court cases are settled. After that, they either lose the trademark patent or keep it.
 
I find your use of the word "retarded" offensive. Couldn't you have used "mentally challenged"?

I think you should have to use a different word than 'challenged' as those of us who challenge ourselves are really hurt that somebody might see us as mental.
 
Didn't the article state that the patent office had no power to prevent the redskins from continuing to use their name.

Yes but now every T-shirt maker in China can copy their logo and sell it, taking revenue from the NFL.
 
How about if he is Apache? Does he still have to change it? (Disclaimer: I know you were being amicably sarcastic.)

Why of course! By his username, he's saying that Apaches are rats! We can't have that!
 
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.

Apache is the name of a tribe. How is the name disparaging? What tribe is the redskins?
 
I find your use of the word "retarded" offensive. Couldn't you have used "mentally challenged"?

That's just stupid.

Wait... that's offensive.

That's just idiotic.

Wait... that too.

That's moronic.

Dammit!
 
Back
Top Bottom