• 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

Misterveritis said:
This is an indication of the heart of a tyrant. It is okay for the government to behave improperly, tyrannically, as long as it is against people you don't like.
Click to expand...

No, but it goes better with my glass of zinfandel.
 
DA60 said:
This whole Redskins thing has gotten boring.

I, personally, find the name ridiculous, nonsensical and insensitive...but I believe in free speech above all else.

But there is no point whining about it as clearly the owner is not going to change the name until he is financially pressured to do so.

I would also add, that in addition to the name nonsense, imo, he is the worst NFL owner with a proven track record for negative intervention and incompetence. Good owners are best seen and not heard.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but should the federal government be the driving forcé behind that financial pressure?
 
Grim17 said:
Chalk one up for Rush Limbaugh... He predicted back on January 9th that this was how the Obama Administration would go after the Redskins

Quick Hits Page - The Rush Limbaugh Show
Click to expand...

Good find. I so rarely listen to Rush now that I'm retired and not on the road a lot that I didn't hear that. But like Breitbart, Drudge, and others, his research teams are monitoring the scuttlebutt on stuff long before it makes the newspapers or the evening news. And he has hit the nail on the head in that way more than once.
 
Earlier I wrote, "This is an indication of the heart of a tyrant. It is okay for the government to behave improperly, tyrannically, as long as it is against people you don't like."
Top Cat said:
No, but it goes better with my glass of zinfandel.
Click to expand...
In addition to indications that you have the heart of a tyrant your current words indicate a strong possibility of some other mental disorder. Should I interpret your non-answer to mean you like a tyrannical government acting against people you don't like because you drink?
 
Misterveritis said:
Earlier I wrote, "This is an indication of the heart of a tyrant. It is okay for the government to behave improperly, tyrannically, as long as it is against people you don't like."

In addition to indications that you have the heart of a tyrant your current words indicate a strong possibility of some other mental disorder. Should I interpret your non-answer to mean you like a tyrannical government acting against people you don't like because you drink?
Click to expand...

It was my kind way of telling you I don't give a flying **** what you think. You used up your allotment of nice with your personal attack. I've been suspended for less.
 
Top Cat said:
It was my kind way of telling you I don't give a flying **** what you think. You used up your allotment of nice with your personal attack. I've been suspended for less.
Click to expand...
The difference between us is that I don't have the heart of a tyrant. And while I drink adult beverages I don't claim it is because state tyranny that I like goes better with it.
 
DA60 said:
This whole Redskins thing has gotten boring.

I, personally, find the name ridiculous, nonsensical and insensitive...but I believe in free speech above all else.

But there is no point whining about it as clearly the owner is not going to change the name until he is financially pressured to do so.

I would also add, that in addition to the name nonsense, imo, he is the worst NFL owner with a proven track record for negative intervention and incompetence. Good owners are best seen and not heard.
Click to expand...

The name has been around for years.

just like the braves and everything else. the whole entire business has been built around the name. sorry if people don't like it. they can get over it. this guy isn't going to change it. he will appeal the challange and win just like he has won the past 3 times before.

why? because your offense to something isn't allowed to cause penalty and finincial hardship on someone else.
changing the branding and the time to change the branding would cause undo hardship on the organization and what is worse is they could sue the indian tribes for that finincial loss.
 
Misterveritis said:
The difference between us is that I don't have the heart of a tyrant. And while I drink adult beverages I don't claim it is because state tyranny that I like goes better with it.
Click to expand...

Fortunately that's not the only fifference
 
Misterveritis said:
Those are the two differences that count.

I don't have the heart of a tyrant.
I don't like the federal tyranny because it goes with my drink of choice.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't give a flying **** what you think.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Good find. I so rarely listen to Rush now that I'm retired and not on the road a lot that I didn't hear that. But like Breitbart, Drudge, and others, his research teams are monitoring the scuttlebutt on stuff long before it makes the newspapers or the evening news. And he has hit the nail on the head in that way more than once.
Click to expand...

Obama was accused of manufacturing the Bergdahl deal to get the VA scandal off the headlines. Maybe this was done to get the Bergdahl scandal off the headlines. Gotta admit, the timing is definitely curious.

If so, it's a pretty damning scenario if one has to keep manufacturing events and issues in attempts to get oneself out of the news.
 
radcen said:
Obama was accused of manufacturing the Bergdahl deal to get the VA scandal off the headlines. Maybe this was done to get the Bergdahl scandal off the headlines. Gotta admit, the timing is definitely curious.

If so, it's a pretty damning scenario if one has to keep manufacturing events and issues in attempts to get oneself out of the news.
Click to expand...
And then he rounded up the Benghazi suspects to take the focus off the patent office and Redskin thing ;)
 
Just wondering what the Redskins actually lose if this stands. It's still their property, no one else can use it without their permission. They will sue any that does. So I don't think they will be "forced", as Harry Reid claimed, to change anything.
 
Anthony60 said:
Just wondering what the Redskins actually lose if this stands. It's still their property, no one else can use it without their permission. They will sue any that does. So I don't think they will be "forced", as Harry Reid claimed, to change anything.
Click to expand...

No. That's what trademark is, the reserving of a name, logo, etc., for exclusive use. By rescinding the trademark, now ANYBODY can make a Redskins shirt, cap, whatever, with the name and logo and keep all the profits themselves.
 
Anthony60 said:
Just wondering what the Redskins actually lose if this stands. It's still their property, no one else can use it without their permission. They will sue any that does. So I don't think they will be "forced", as Harry Reid claimed, to change anything.
Click to expand...

If Snyder's appeal fails, it's a huge chink in the NFL's exclusive rights armor. Redskin shirts, caps, bobble heads, helmets, maybe even broadcasts of the games themselves can suddenly be copied and sold without need to pay a single dime in royalties. That would be a disaster.
 
radcen said:
Obama was accused of manufacturing the Bergdahl deal to get the VA scandal off the headlines. Maybe this was done to get the Bergdahl scandal off the headlines. Gotta admit, the timing is definitely curious.

If so, it's a pretty damning scenario if one has to keep manufacturing events and issues in attempts to get oneself out of the news.
Click to expand...

Stranger things have happened. "Wag the dog" is not a fictitious concept in politics.
 
How can you have a sports team named after the American Indian in 2014? I am not at all offended by the name, I object to the hypocrisy. There is no other race or ethnicity that has a major sports team named after them. If there were teams like the "Boston Blacks" or the "Cleveland Caucasians" or the "Jersey Jews" or the "Houston Hispanics" complete with caricatures similar to the Cleveland Indians "Chief Wahoo" mascot, people everywhere would lose their mind over it. They'd go berserk. Why the American Indian is allowed to have a team named after their race/ethnicity while others are protected is the ultimate pinnacle of hypocrisy.
 
calamity said:
If Snyder's appeal fails, it's a huge chink in the NFL's exclusive rights armor. Redskin shirts, caps, bobble heads, helmets, maybe even broadcasts of the games themselves can suddenly be copied and sold without need to pay a single dime in royalties. That would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Some commentator on the radio (forget who) suggested the financial impact would be minimal. The NFL shares merchandise revenue and the Redskins are only one team... and not even close to the highest selling team, merchandise-wise.
 
radcen said:
No. That's what trademark is, the reserving of a name, logo, etc., for exclusive use. By rescinding the trademark, now ANYBODY can make a Redskins shirt, cap, whatever, with the name and logo and keep all the profits themselves.
Click to expand...

They still own the name, and still have the exclusive right to use the name/logo, etc... The federal trademark isn't required for them to defend the use of their property. They didn't lose the property, or their mark.
 
Anthony60 said:
They still own the name, and still have the exclusive right to use the name/logo, etc... The federal trademark isn't required for them to defend the use of their property. They didn't lose the property, or their mark.
Click to expand...

but it is a p.r nightmare for the teams management
 
radcen said:
Some commentator on the radio (forget who) suggested the financial impact would be minimal. The NFL shares merchandise revenue and the Redskins are only one team... and not even close to the highest selling team, merchandise-wise.
Click to expand...

It's still a dent in the NFL armor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom