US Patent Office Cancels Trademark for Washington

[SonnyCID]

Mmmm they were called the Braves, right? Can we agree that was meant to be respectful and meant to honor NA? Unfortunately to many other teams were called Braves so to avoid confusion they found another term they felt would similarly convey the same idea and settled on Redskins and this is a smoking gun?

IDK about smoking gun, but that does kind of put a kibash to the argument that they were specifically named the Redskins out of respect for Natives.

 

[dirtboy068]

Mmmm they were called the Braves, right? Can we agree that was meant to be respectful and meant to honor NA? Unfortunately to many other teams were called Braves so to avoid confusion they found another term they felt would similarly convey the same idea and settled on Redskins and this is a smoking gun?

that's all that needs to be said....

 

[dirtboy068]

This Dated Video Helped Make The Case Against The Redskins Trademarks

 

[nebearsfan70]

problem solved

 

[HaroldSeattle]

that's all that needs to be said....

I guess you only like to read the part you agree with and ignore the rest. The so called smoking gun is in fact proof the term Redskins was mean to honor NA.

 

[NinerSickness]

All that proves is that historically speaking, liberal doesn't equal democrat and conservative doesn't equal republican. Throughout American history ideology has been fluid between the parties. It's not like the conservative Republican party abolished slavery, they were liberals.

Yes, the fuck, it is like the conservative party abolished slavery. The Republican platform has always been a small, limited government party, and it was against slavery before it was cool.

Woodrow Wilson was as liberal as liberal gets.

FDR was (New deal)

LBJ was (the greatest expansion of government in US history).

Democrats have been a big-government party since the time of Lincoln. The Republican Party has never once been responsible for the radical expansion of government. Never. That was a leftist ideal since the time of Marx (1818 - 1883).

Liberals don't speak for Native Americans.

 

[SonnyCID]

Yes, the fuck, it is like the conservative party abolished slavery. The Republican platform has always been a small, limited government party, and it was against slavery before it was cool.

Woodrow Wilson was as liberal as liberal gets.

FDR was (New deal)

LBJ was (the greatest expansion of government in US history).

Democrats have been a big-government party since the time of Lincoln. The Republican Party has never once been responsible for the radical expansion of government. Never. That was a leftist ideal since the time of Marx (1818 - 1883).

Liberals don't speak for Native Americans.

Radical Republican - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dirtboy068]

I guess you only like to read the part you agree with and ignore the rest. The so called smoking gun is in fact proof the term Redskins was mean to honor NA.

keep spinning away....

 

[NinerSickness]

Radical Republican - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what you post to argue (ridiculously) that the Republican Party platform was government-expansion??? A Wikipedia link?

You liberals are constantly blaming anything bad that happened in history on right-wingers even if it was leftists that did it. Best example: Nazi Germany. Liberals (stupidly) try to argue that was a conservative party.

Nazi = National German SOCIALIST Workers Party.

Fascism = everyone together = huge government control in countries from Sparta to Italy to Germany.

Where's your example of Republican politicians supporting the radical expansion of government at any point in history? You won't find it because Democrats have been behind government expansion EVERY SINGLE TIME.

 

[dirtboy068]

more of the smoking gun



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCoHuyAv0kY

 

[NinerSickness]

more of the smoking gun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCoHuyAv0kY

Oh shocking the most liberal human being on planet earth (Keith Olbermann) says the name is racist.

Native Americans called themselves "Red" men and The Great Spirit's "Red" children in the 1700's. Redskin was never a racial slur.

 

[SonnyCID]

This is what you post to argue (ridiculously) that the Republican Party platform was government-expansion??? A Wikipedia link?

You liberals are constantly blaming anything bad that happened in history on right-wingers even if it was leftists that did it. Best example: Nazi Germany. Liberals (stupidly) try to argue that was a conservative party.

Nazi = National German SOCIALIST Workers Party.

Fascism = everyone together = huge government control in countries from Sparta to Italy to Germany.

Where's your example of Republican politicians supporting the expansion of government at any point in history? You won't find it because Democrats have been behind government expansion EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I just gave it.

If you knew about Radical Republicans or took time to read the link you would probably agree with their reasoning for government expansion. But instead we'll just dismiss it because it's presented in a wiki link.

 

[NinerSickness]

I just gave it.

If you knew about Radical Republicans or took time to read the link you would probably agree with their reasoning for government expansion. But instead we'll just dismiss it because it's presented in a wiki link.

No, don't talk about one faction of a party that Wikipedia may or may not have accurately portrayed. Talk about the actual expansion of government, and tell me who voted for it. Give me the actual law that was passed.

...which I know you can't do because there is none. On the other hand, 70% of federal, unfunded liabilities can be traced to the guy who said, "I'll have those N*****s voting Democrat for the next 200 years" (LBJ). The super liberal (in the modern sense of the word).

You can't re-write history. People like Lincoln, Grant, Taft, Eisenhower and so on did not support gov't expansion. People like Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Obama did.

 

[SonnyCID]

No, don't talk about one faction of a party that Wikipedia may or may not have accurately portrayed. Talk about the actual expansion of government, and tell me who voted for it. Give me the actual law that was passed.

...which I know you can't do because there is none. On the other hand, 70% of federal, unfunded liabilities can be traced to the guy who said, "I'll have those N*****s voting Democrat for the next 200 years" (LBJ). The super liberal (in the modern sense of the word).

You can't re-write history. People like Lincoln, Grant, Taft, Eisenhower and so on did not support gov't expansion. People like Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Obama did.

The Reconstruction Acts after the Civil War was major government expansion.

I'm not trying to get in a pissing match or anything. I'm just saying that when you say "never", you're wrong.

 

[NinerSickness]

The Reconstruction Acts after the Civil War was major government expansion.

I'm not trying to get in a pissing match or anything. I'm just saying that when you say "never", you're wrong.

The Reconstruction acts were a literal expansion of the government to preserve & expand the union. Like when Polk campaigned on the northern boundary of the western US. That's not a liberal or conservative concept.

I'm talking about a functional expansion of government like Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, targeted subsidies & the like. That is a liberal (left) idea.

And when I say never I mean never, and I'm right. There has never once been a radical expansion of government's functions done by republicans since the party's founding in 1854. Never once.

No matter what you say, you can't pass the blame on to conservatives for what liberals have been doing for 150+ years (KKK, Jim Crow laws, opposing civil rights acts & 14th amendment and so on). Democrats have always been the left-leaning, Karl Marx supporting party since the Whigs went extinct.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

This thread is getting way off topic here.

 

[NinerSickness]

This thread is getting way off topic here.

It really isn't. This is absolutely a conservative VS liberal issue. It's liberals and liberals only who are clamouring for the Redskins to change their name. It would be intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

 

[ram29jackson]

 

[WizardHawk]

It really isn't. This is absolutely a conservative VS liberal issue. It's liberals and liberals only who are clamouring for the Redskins to change their name. It would be intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

If this is the base of the story for you then that part of it probably should be conducted in the politics forum.

General observations about government overstepping to even be involved is fine, but full on political ideological debates belong locked away in a place where most sane readers can easily avoid them.

 

[NinerSickness]

If this is the base of the story for you then that part of it probably should be conducted in the politics forum.

General observations about government overstepping to even be involved is fine, but full on political ideological debates belong locked away in a place where most sane readers can easily avoid them.

Political issues come up in professional sports all the time. They're not mutually exclusive.