Posted on 06/19/2014 8:16:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Bookmark
I find it hard to embrace the abstract and abandon the concrete.
Exactly.
I think I heard ths some gay group is getting ready to go after the Rams and the Packers.
Just a rumor for now.
Why is the name Redskins disparaging? Is the Red Man ashamed of his skin color?
You mean your opinion about this is based on whether or not you’re a Washington Redskins fan? That seems pretty shallow.
You’re not going to phase me. I’m a “Redskins fan” in the sense that this team and its logo have been familiar to me for lo these many years without any suggestion of offense. How about the logo itself? It’s entirely dignified. Now suddenly I’m to be stricken with PC madness? Not gonna happen!
This is a major threat to free speech and also to property rights.
Why is it that it took all the way to comment # 28 for the real issue to arise. This is a property rights issue.
The trademarks and symbology of the Wahington Redskins are registered in the USPTO as belonging to the owners of the Redskins organization, just as title to my home is registered in the county recorder's office where I live. If someone in the USPTO can say "not anymore", then what prevents someone in my county, or yours, from saying the same "not anymore" about our real estate?
Property rights are one thing that has set this country apart from the very beginning. In early drafts of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson had written that men were endowed with rights to "life, liberty and property." This was later revised to "pursuit of happiness" over concerns that it glorified America's "original sin" of slavery.
So as far as I can tell, the Redskins logo is still protected, the team name is not (nor am I sure it ever should have been), and the symbolic victory is complete.As for the whole controversy in Indian Country, I'm sure you could poll 20 different American Indians sporting redskins logo wear and not one could tell you the team record or even the normal starting quarterback. This is, and continues to be an effort by those outside of the 'res' and is one of those normal symbolic victories that liberals continue to run with. Meanwhile, reservations continue to ban abortions, do not recognize same sex marriages, even those which have been approved in the state where the reservation is, yet continue to support the party that endeavors to make them into even more dependent people while ignoring the party that brought the most prosperity to Indian Country through the Indian Gaming Act (Ronald Reagan and the republicans.)
Anyway, gotta go, the tribal leadership is again buying votes for the up coming election.
It’s an attack on free speech.
Period.
End of sentence.
The article says “Congress shall pass no law”.
And what did Congress just do?
You mean they DON'T already do this in America?
I suppose the Skins would be a good name but can't imagine what the mascot would look like....
And what did Congress just do?
Congress didn't do it. Our slimy executive branch did it.
Congress established the USPTO, true. But they didn't imagine the scum the sheeple would elect.
This board cited a law passed by Congress about not offending others.
Change it to the Washington Pale Faces.
See if anyone gives a rip.
From a lesser known clause in a document from 1776: "He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us."
The effect is much the same for a nation cast adrift from law.
Yeah, but under that law, they earlier granted the trademark. If they later change their mind, then it should be deemed a "taking", to be compensated at the ten-digit level by the Sheeple.
I like yours best.
The Washington Palefaces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.