Originally posted by Norm dePlume
View Post
Redskins trademarks canceled by U.S. Patent Office
Collapse
X
-
You asked if the movement came from Native Americans. If she's a Native American, then, yeah, I guess it did. If she just meant it as a shake down to get some money out of the franchise, then I'd say she's doing it wrong.Originally posted by Frostbit View PostMotive? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are real people of color. You think they really give a shit about black people?
Comment
-
Why?Originally posted by Norm dePlume View PostYou asked if the movement came from Native Americans. If she's a Native American, then, yeah, I guess it did. If she just meant it as a shake down to get some money out of the franchise, then I'd say she's doing it wrong.If it pays, it stays
Comment
-
Hell, 50% and more are offended by Obama. You'll gladly tell them that they can go screw themselves.Originally posted by Norm dePlume View PostSo the other 9% can go screw themselves?
There is no right to not be offended in this country.
I'll repeat it so that hopefully it can sink in a little deeper: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED IN THIS COUNTRY.
This is a case of the federal government deciding to utilize its power to somehow enforce that people aren't offended. That flies in the very face of everything upon which this country was founded.It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now
Comment
-
There is no right to have a protected trademark in this country, either. No "endowed by their creator" natural right, at least.Originally posted by Adam View PostHell, 50% and more are offended by Obama. You'll gladly tell them that they can go screw themselves.
There is no right to not be offended in this country.
I'll repeat it so that hopefully it can sink in a little deeper: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED IN THIS COUNTRY.
This is a case of the federal government deciding to utilize its power to somehow enforce that people aren't offended. That flies in the very face of everything upon which this country was founded.
So I'm sure you'll be happy to know that "Obama" is not a protected trademark and you won't have to pay a licensing fee every time you use it.Last edited by Norm dePlume; Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 9:10 PM.
Comment
-
Okay...now that's funny!Originally posted by Adam View PostNot where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
Robert Southwell, S.J.
Comment
-
I think it's pretty obvious that this trademark thing is a workaround to force a business to do something that it could not be legally persuaded to do. So even if the workaround is legal, it's not an ethical use of government power. Moreover, Princess Bullshit and her handful of buddies simply do not have standing to declare offense for all the American Indians, even if you could define that term as being people who are at least three quarters Eurasian Migrant Stock of Pre- eurrocolonial Ancestry.Originally posted by Norm dePlume View PostThere is no right to have a protected trademark in this country, either. No "endowed by their creator" natural right, at least.
So I'm sure you'll be happy to know that "Obama" is not a protected trademark and you won't have to pay a licensing fee every time you use it.The year's at the spring
And day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
God's in his heaven—
All's right with the world!
Comment
-
No, just one enshrined in the Constitution.Originally posted by Norm dePlume View PostThere is no right to have a protected trademark in this country, either. No "endowed by their creator" natural right, at least.It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now
Comment
-
Article I, section 8, powers of Congress? That guarantees Daniel Snyder the right to a protected trademark on the "Washington Redskins"? You're gonna have to explain a little.Originally posted by Adam View PostNo, just one enshrined in the Constitution.
Comment
-
What constitutes "valid" in this case?Originally posted by Norm dePlume View PostNo, I envision a society in which those who are offended by a trademark can petition to have that trademark rescinded and if their case is found to be valid the trademark is rescinded regardless of how many other people you can find who don't care one way or the other.May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.
Comment
-
We're already there because she did. She lost.Originally posted by Norm dePlume View PostNo, I envision a society in which those who are offended by a trademark can petition to have that trademark rescinded...Once you vote yourselves into Communism, you must shoot your way out.
Science that cannot be questioned is propaganda.
Comment
-
-
You're absolutely right. Let's name all the teams something like that. How about the Los Angeles Darkies and the New York Kikes? Texas Beaners?Originally posted by Adam View PostHell, 50% and more are offended by Obama. You'll gladly tell them that they can go screw themselves.
There is no right to not be offended in this country.
I'll repeat it so that hopefully it can sink in a little deeper: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED IN THIS COUNTRY.
This is a case of the federal government deciding to utilize its power to somehow enforce that people aren't offended. That flies in the very face of everything upon which this country was founded."Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)
Comment
Comment