Best
799 Comments
Post
  • #38
    !
    @Knightkore @Arumizy
    so, if we called them the Black Skins...would that work out better for you all?....just because there are less Native Americans (because we killed most of them)...than African Americans doesn't make it any less racist
  • #43
    !
    Very True, And its not even like the Trademark matters. So now other insensitive a-hole groups can use the image without fear of being sued? Whoop-de-doo
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    It's time to push back through Constitutional law.....I wouldn't mind suing the government as a class action lawsuit to defend Dan Snyder and the Redskins.....

    And call ALL our reps and let them know we won't stand for this.....including Senator Harry Reid.....flood his lines.....
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #114
    !
    No. A government agency whose job it is to issue patents revoked a patent based on the fact that the name redskins is a racial slur. It is also the patent office job to deny patent requests. One of the reason a patent can be denied is if the trademark can be considered offensive.
    Also, this case is 22 years old. Thats some slooooow out of control.
  • #147
    !
    Political correctness has been a point of law for decades. Note: lynchings went from being picnics, to being frowned upon to being outright illegal all before MLK was assassinated for saying that Black Americans were being used as cannon fodder in the Viet Nam conflict. Note that Viet Nam was two words until some time in the middle seventies; we changed it for political correctness.
  • #151
    !
    @Knightkore

    You would mind, otherwise you'd be doing it instead of going on about how you wouldn't mind it. If you wouldn't mind it then do it.
  • R Load more replies

  • #107
    !
    The G is definitely out of control (and inept at everything they touch). I defend the first amendment Having said that I feel that the Redskin mascot is in poor taste. I know it has been around a long time and wasn't meant to be offensive but now we find it is. Maybe the team should revisit the brand. How about a soccer team....the Philadelphia WOPS or a basketball team the Harlem Spooks ? I guess I am in the minority here but I don't see the difference. Again...I think the government was wrong in it's action but wish it weren't necessary.
  • #187
    !
    @gulf01 The polls prove that 80-90% of Native Americans polled say it isn't offensive. What is next? Cowboys? Is that offensive? The Braves? Is that offensive? What is offensive is our government stepping out of line!
  • #311
    !
    @TigerLandSC -This situation I can relate distinctly to an old Star Trek episode "The Omega Glory" but it is we (predominantly white people of European descent) who are in the position of the Kohms and of course actual Native Americans are in the position of the Yangs. The "phasers" the Yangs fear are the lies, rhetoric and broken promises to Native Americans. So many (by your statistics 80-90%) don't speak against the government for fear the deadly "fireboxes" will silence many of them as they have been for centuries. This action is like the final scene where Kirk, blood spattered, but having defeated Tracey, shows the Constitution is meant for ALL people INCLUDING the Kohms. I think that after some time the 80-90% statistic will drop quite drastically since finally after so many lies and broken promises the government spoke in favor of Native Americans.
  • #312
    !
    @TigerLandSC
    Well, as a native born Texan , I could say I am offended that Texans are portrayed as illiterate rednecks, an image perpetrated by the name of the football team, Cowboys. Than again, the people who care about this crap are most likely illiterate rednecks.
  • #323
    !
    Yeah, and all the rabid barking moonbats have come out to play today!

    PC is what you get when you wear underwear 3 sizes too small!

    :)
  • R Load more replies

  • #268
    !
    A lot of these knuckleheads with Politix have shown their true colors over the past few months. Lisa is only but one of them.
  • #283
    !
    She really needs to tone it down. Either that, or Politix needs a new writer who is as loudly Conservative as Lisa Fine is loudly Liberal.

    Remember: The United States is 42% Conservative, 40% Moderate and 18% Liberal.

    Why are most media outlets 90% Liberal, 8% Moderate and 2% Conservative?
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more replies

  • #113
    !
    I am both an American Indian and a Native American as I was born here. This is ridiculous and inane. By Blackfeet grandmother once said some people are not happy unless they have something to complain about, she also thought that the whole "Native American" term was idiotic as every one born here was a Native American. She once wondered why the majority of those involved in the issue had no Indian blood in them what so ever, some people just can not mind their own business.
  • #218
    !
    My grandmother was a Native American and I am not, just like YOU are not. It's pathetic when people like you claim to be Native, it's like claiming you're a plumber because you're grandfather was.
  • #244
    !
    Thank You for an opinion that means absolutely nothing, coming from absolutely no where. The fact that YOU feel a certain way about your ancestry, means they YOU feel a certain way about your ancestry, it has no bearing on any one else, and nor should it. What is pathetic is when someone claims to be the arbiter of all because they feel that way and think all should be the same. Concerning how I was raised, and what the connection to my heritage, to my great uncles, to all my cousins was or still is is really none of your concern and frankly any of your moronic business.
  • #425
    !
    @TigerLandSC He's a mixed race person but he's considered black due to his complexion. Can the same be made for Kenshi? Look at him and tell me he looks native, he looks more Irish bald guy than anything else.
  • #428
    !
    @Kenshi You are NOT A NATIVE! Take a look in the mirror and then check your address, unless you like using pictures of chubby Irish guys as your avatar and you live on a reservation with your Native Parents then you ARE NOT a Native. My uncle fought in WWII, won the Medal Of Honor, that doesn't mean squat to my standing so I won't be standing there supporting a German Soccer team called the Operation Market Garden American Killers, because it's a sign of respect, just like your backwards love for the insult named Washington Redskins.
  • R Load more replies

  • #134
    !
    @ahsum99ss Wow. Trashing someone on a personal level while you enjoy free use of the web site that employs her. No manners, at all.
  • #192
    !
    @Zazziness Uh...in case you hadn't noticed, this is a website that is run on opinion. There is no doubt that Lisa Fine writes headlines with the idea of driving controversy, and responses, in mind.
  • R Load more replies

  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #119
    !
    The patent office regularly refuses patents if it contains offensive material. Racsit slurs are offensive.
    More importantly this case was filed 22 years ago.
  • #133
    !
    @foodbaby According to Smithsonian historian Ives Goddard, early historical records indicate that "Redskin" was used as a self-identifier by Native Americans to differentiate between the two races. Goddard found that the first use of the word "redskin" came in 1769, in negotiations between the Piankashaws and Col. John Wilkins. Throughout the 1800s, the word was frequently used by Native Americans as they negotiated with the French and later the Americans. The phrase gained widespread usage among whites when James Fenimore Cooper used it in his 1823 novel The Pioneers. In the book, Cooper has a dying Indian character lament, "There will soon be no red-skin in the country."
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #200
    !
    @cowboy67 oh no... your name is 'Cowboy'-I need the white liberals to help me get politix to ban your name immediately! It might be offensive.(Yes, I am being sarcastic)
  • R Load more replies

  • #396
    !
    Indeed it is--

    We knew that eventually the tentacles of this mis-administration would reach into every nook and cranny of this bloated sow of gubment. The 1st Amendment guaranteeing free speech, doesn't guarantee that some won't be offended. PC is not a rule of law either, you idiots!

    My Indian friends are not insulted by the name of that sports team. However, there is an anomaly afoot in some native American circles -- the white man has introduced liberals into their mists as they did with social diseases and small pox, etc. Yes, I have enough Cherokee blood to get a seat in the snack-bar at the Taulequah Rez, but not enough to get me in the back room of their casino's. <wink>
  • #15
    !
    Oh and by the way it is NOT racist.....Redskins, the name and the team are not racist.....

    Those who are "supporting" this ONE tribe are racists because they assume one tribe speaks for over 500 tribes.....across this nation.....

    The white men who are pressing political correctness at the expense of and explicit attacks against WE THE PEOPLE and the Constituion.....the First Amendment are the ones that are racists because they know nothing of the differences of each native american nation and that not all of them are against the name of Redskins.....

    It's like how progressive liberal old farts think that hispanics are all one and the same.....and put Spanish people into the same category as Mexican illegals.....
  • #426
    !
    the swastika used to be a symbol of auspiciousness, some evil crackers came along and changed the whole thing. Redskin is racist... 80 years ago, when the team was named that, calling Indians "savages" was also not taboo. But now that history books spell out the truth about our governments treatment of them, the general public has developed more sensitivity, and American Indians are no longer our enemies, and a name used by those who slaughtered indians (like Redskins, savages, etc) has since become known by most as offensive. When the Team got it's name, Indians couldn't even VOTE legally. But neither should any word. But to deny that it's racist is like saying the N-word isn't racist. Would the n-word be racist, had slave owners and klansmen not used it so often to describe African Americans? Probably not... but they did, and it is racist. Should anyword be banned by a government that claims to support free speech? No. But to ignore what alot of people see a word to mean doesn't change it's meaning.
  • #473
    !
    It is an offensive name because some people find it to be offensive. As thismonkey pointed out, the common definition of words changes with the times. A term that may not have been offensive initially, can become offensive through common use over time. To deny this is to deny any sort of understanding of language.
  • #481
    !
    @thismonkey And yet rather than being racist any longer Redskins is now associated with for decades, almost a hundred years now, with a football team.....and there is definitely not a consensus by a majority of native american nations that it was ever offensive.....
  • #483
    !
    @Supereditor And yet through common use.....of a football team.....it is nearly a hundred years now and it is now associated with a football team.....one that many native americans support and cheer for.....
  • #487
    !
    @Supereditor It's like the damn war on Christmas.....schools don't name their programs Christmas programs but Christman might offend someone.....so it becomes Winter programs and that ends up offending others.....

    Face it.....no matter how one shakes it out.....you will offend someone.....that is what freedom is about.....

    Hell you excerise your free speech well to offend the hell out of me.....but I champion that freedom.....I don't want to fishslap you into silence.....
  • R Load more replies

  • #424
    !
    I can't help notice that the very same people who are offended by the name 'Redskins' are the ones who have no problem calling folks from the South hillbillies and rednecks and use terms like T-billies and baggers.
  • #599
    !
    @ UncleSi: True. It is a shame that Liberals feel so empowered to stereotype, mock and ridicule Christians, Conservatives and Southerners with such gleeful petulance. They can call someone a "redneck" or "homophobe" as a slur, yet they will bitterly fight the term "redskin" -- even though it was first used by Native American tribes to describe the warriors from Delaware, Mohican and other northeastern tribes that wore red paint on their faces and skin.

    The word "redskin" was a term that invoked honor UNTIL a small handful of activists -- mostly white Liberals -- who are ignorant of history became offended by it.
  • #3
    !
    This is an attack on the Constitution and the First Amendment.....and WE THE PEOPLE.....based on one native american tribe.....of which there are at least 500 nations of native americans.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gathering_of_Nat...

    This U.S. patent office is using the power of the government against the First Amendment.....

    It's time to sue Blackhorse and the U.S. government.....
  • #124
    !
    Sooooo you actually think removing a trademark that limits who can use and profit from a name is an attack on the first amendment? Who is no longer allowed to use the racist term redskins?
    I think you need to study the constitution a bit more...... a lot more
  • #166
    !
    @Knightkore it is a racist term NOW. Words change. Meanings change.
    And the whole we used that name cause of the Indians on our team has been debunked
  • R Load more replies

  • #329
    !
    As an old guy, I have probably heard every derogatory term there is for whites, blacks, Mexicans, Italians, French, women, Asians, etc., etc. In my entire life I have never heard anyone use the term 'redskin' as a derogatory term for American Indians.
    And how can the government rule that reference to skin color is offensive? There are many official government forms that ask if you're white or black. Courts and police use those terms in an official capacity. It's political correctness gone bonkers!
  • #216
    !
    It is not racist, it is just a bunch of liberal race batters at work, they love trouble, and they love to get us off important issues like the IRS email debacle, how our leader is wrecking us, and Benghazi lies. So they throw out nonsense like Redskins being racist. Get over it you liberal sick in the head people.
  • #486
    !
    What precedent are you talking about? This ruling was based on precedent and established law. It in no way changes the law or establishes a new precedent.
  • #67
    !
    http://www.uspto.gov/news/USPTO_Official_Stat...

    The decision to cancel the registrations means that, if not appealed or not affirmed following a possible review by a federal court, the trademark owner (Pro Football, Inc.) will lose the legal benefits conferred by federal registration. These benefits include the legal presumptions of ownership and of nationwide scope of rights in these trademarks, as well as the ability to use the federal registration ® symbol, and to record the registrations with the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Service to block importation of infringing or counterfeit foreign goods.
    The decision does not, however, require the trademarks in the involved registrations to be changed or no longer be used by Washington, D.C.’s pro football team. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board does not have jurisdiction in a cancellation proceeding to require that a party cease use of a mark, but only to determine whether a mark may continue to be registered.
    This decision can be reviewed by a federal court. The registrations will not appear in the USPTO’s records as cancelled until after any judicial review is completed.
  • #307
    !
    Wouldn't surprise me to see an executive order from the White House forbidding the name. That seems to supersede any laws on the books. We can then just skip all that nonsense with Appeals Boards and judicial reviews.
  • #580
    !
    @courtobserver
    It doesn't, or maybe I should say shouldn't. I have to dig back in my memory, but I believe it was the "Administrative Procedures Act of 1942" that overstepped the Constitutional use of the Executive Order which was merely to provide the methods for the Executive to carry out the laws passed by Congress. Since then it has been interpreted to give the Executive almost dictatorial powers. All that is necessary for the gangsters in the bureaucracy to create laws is to publish their regulations in the Federal Register. If not challenged by Congress within 30 days they have the effect of law. Congress can't possibly keep up with all these regulations. This has played a major role in reducing America to a Socialist, Communist, Fascist Authoritarian State.
  • #620
    !
    Agreed. It may not have been clear but I was being sarcastic. The use of executive orders has had the exact effect you point out in your comments.
  • #627
    !
    The British commonly use the term Red Indian to distinguish American Indians from people from India. There is nothing remotely derogatory meant by using the word 'Red'. I suggest we begin using the word 'Aboriginals' for Indians. I don't think they would like that either but if you don't know the precise meaning, look it up, it's quite appropriate. The Washington Aboriginals has quite a ring to it. They could even keep the same logo!
  • R Load more replies

  • #148
    !
    Will the knuckle-draggers who cannot leave the racial slurs out of everyday conversation please crawl back in their caves and stay out of civilization's way?
  • #224
    !
    No one is saying you can't be racist, by all means carry on. They're saying your business name can't be racist... just like how it can't use the f-word and other profanities. Now I believe you should be able to name anything whatever you want. But if we have to abide by Judeo-Christian rules as to what words are naughty, being a secular, non-discriminant nation we have to apply those rules to all who are offended by other words when it comes to trademarking a business.

    I want to make a business called "F*ck yeah!" but I can't trademark that name because a bunch of christian prudes might get offended... how is that any different?
  • #246
    !
    @thismonkey If an Indian is not offended by 'Redskins' why do all the white folks got a problem with the name? Pretty obvious difference to me. Of course, I don't spend my time being all PC.
  • #275
    !
    @justapirate all the white folks DON'T have a problem with, when you look at this thread? I don't spend all my time being PC either. I just think if Christians are allowed to ban words from use because of their prudish, puritan, dark aged ideology, that other groups should be be granted the same right. And as I stated, no words should be banned from trademark for being "offensive", but who started this madness?
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post