The Redskins just need to change their logo right?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Advan046 wrote: As my Social Studies teacher said one day: Anyone that ever attended or sent family to a public school in the USA has been a part of the largest socialist and communist organization in the world. Government controlled, funded and provided to all.

Really? The US school system is larger than the whole of China or the USSR was? I guess it's good they only let him teach Social Studies. He would have been a terrible math teacher.

Yes as an engineer in training I scoffed at the numbers as well but I understood his point. We enjoy the provision of government direction and services and sometimes crave it and other times are revolted by it. We apply labels to it to defend or demean it. The debate in this thread is due to a split in those that crave or are revolted by the actions taken by the federal government.

If the decision by the federal government was to listen to the some of the citizens and take action to no longer defend the trademark then cool. They listened to their people. That is what I think everyone here would agree the federal government should do. There seems to be a implication that some outside force or internal plot has coerced the USA federal agencies to take action. The USA citizens asked for action and the government responded to its' people. Now other people are debating if they should request for reversal of the decision to listen to those citizens. GREAT! In the past this would have resulted in blood letting at least we are now just talking and petitioning.

Advan046 wrote: They listened to their people(aka: political party strategists).

Fixed it for you.

SVreX wrote:

Advan046 wrote: They listened to their people(aka:brain parasite space aliens).

Fixed it for you.

You botched the translation but got it translated properly now.

Advan046 wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Advan046 wrote: They listened to their people(aka:brain parasite space aliens).

Fixed it for you.

You botched the translation but got it translated properly now.

My point was, the decision was clearly driven by political motivation.

Your comment said they listened to their people, and implied government was doing a GOOD thing, by listening to THE people.

They were not listening to THE people. They were listening to THEIR people, who do not include the majority of the electorate.

It's just political posturing, nothing more.

SVreX wrote:

Advan046 wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Advan046 wrote: They listened to their people(aka:brain parasite space aliens).

Fixed it for you.

You botched the translation but got it translated properly now.

My point was, the decision was clearly driven by political motivation. Your comment said they listened to their people, and implied government was doing a GOOD thing, by listening to THE people. They were not listening to THE people. They were listening to THEIR people, who do not include the majority of the electorate. It's just political posturing, nothing more.

I thought the groups of citizens that have been and continue to push on the football team to change their name have also made their concerns known to their representatives and federal agencies. Any good organization is going to be talking to government entities as well as pursuing the football team and legal actions. Why is it assumed that the government never heard from any of the people in favor of changing the name? Why the reference of "THEIR people", where are these referenced people from if not USA citizens?

Washington Crackheads with a picture of Marion Barrys smiling face on the helmet?

SVreX wrote:

Advan046 wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Advan046 wrote: They listened to their people(aka:brain parasite space aliens).

Fixed it for you.

You botched the translation but got it translated properly now.

My point was, the decision was clearly driven by political motivation. Your comment said they listened to their people, and implied government was doing a GOOD thing, by listening to THE people. They were not listening to THE people. They were listening to THEIR people, who do not include the majority of the electorate. It's just political posturing, nothing more.

Since it's happened under both a Republican and Democratic administration, who is the posturing from and who is it aimed towards?

In reply to dculberson:

I'd say current.

I'd say all political posturing is always current. It was current in 1992 as well.

BTW, it was a Democratic Congress both times, for what it is worth.

SVreX wrote: In reply to dculberson: I'd say current. I'd say all political posturing is always current. It was current in 1992 as well. BTW, it was a Democratic Congress both times, for what it is worth.

We don't have a Democratic congress now, we have a mix - Democratic Senate and Republican House. And as madmallard pointed out, "USPTO is part of the department of commerce, which is part of the EXECUTIVE cabinet." Decisions on this are not being made by Congress.

ryanty22 wrote: Washington Crackheads with a picture of Marion Barrys smiling face on the helmet?

No, because that would be racist.

Tralfaz wrote: So you don't feel that being part of a society suggests that perhaps while you have free will there are certain things that are and aren't appropriate? You would think it was fine to go to say an elementary school and call the children a bunch of Bob Costas. Ya know cuz you don't care?

I have my own guidelines, which are not the same as others. If I felt a need to call children a bunch of Bob Costas, then ya, probably? But I don't, for various reasons.

If I felt the need to walk up to you and tell you to go berkeley yourself, well, that has a much higher chance of happening in reality (I'm just kidding, but being serious in a way. Some people might consider that inappropriate, but I find it perfectly reasonable).

That's kind of my whole point; this stuff is subjective, not objective. Apparently, it's completely cool to call gay people queer nowadays which blows my mind and I'm only 26. But it's a thing! Of course, if you are black its acceptable to call your other brethren the n-word, but not if you are any other color... so reverse racism?

The world is a strange place. I'm going to get back to raping and pillaging mother earth for black gold

KyAllroad wrote: In that case it could range from a public shaming by your peers to a beating by a parent who doesn't care for your choice of words.

First of all, in this day and age, public shame is not a thing for most human beings. Second, as for the beating, I don't think that has ever happened in ever. Ever. Because people would be going to jail, and it wouldn't be the obscene person.

spitfirebill wrote:

ryanty22 wrote: Washington Crackheads with a picture of Marion Barrys smiling face on the helmet?

No, because that would be racist.

How would it be racist? He was a very prominent person in dc, he got caught smoking crack multiple times, just a simple fact rather than anything race based

ryanty22 wrote:

spitfirebill wrote:

ryanty22 wrote: Washington Crackheads with a picture of Marion Barrys smiling face on the helmet?

No, because that would be racist.

How would it be racist? He was a very prominent person in dc, he got caught smoking crack multiple times, just a simple fact rather than anything race based

I don't know who you are talking about, but I presume it would be racist cause he isn't white?

you got it … anything derogatory, this day-n-age, if said about someone who isn't white, is racist

Poor persecuted white folk!

dculberson wrote: Poor persecuted white folk!

So, somehow we are supposed to measure everyone's persecution quotient, and people who have been more persecuted historically get more Constitutional protections than people who have suffered less, right?

That is a crock.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, but that people who have historically suffered more deserve more Constitutional protections, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the right to use offensive words themselves but complain when others use them, the right to deny others the rights and freedoms they seek, and the pursuit of feel-goodness".

That's reading a lot into a single sentence.

So how true was that statement of "all men are created equal" at the time of writing it?

Because if you were a woMAN, or a black MAN, or not a property owner, they weren't treated equally for a long time. So let's not go there...

In reply to Cone_Junkie:

I still think it should only be property owners voting......at least then we wouldn't have this damn debate over "How racist voter ID laws are"

Cone_Junkie wrote: So how true was that statement of "all men are created equal" at the time of writing it? Because if you were a woMAN, or a black MAN, or not a property owner, they weren't treated equally for a long time. So let's not go there...

I couldn't disagree more.

The FACT that they were created equal, and it was later recognized that they were not treated equal IS WHAT HAS LED TO CHANGE.

If we adopted the "Let's not go there..." attitude, slavery, women's voting, civil rights, and all kinds of things would NEVER have changed.

The fact is all men (and women) ARE created equal, regardless of whether they are treated that way. The necessity is for us to understand that we forget that sometimes, and need to take action to right things we have done wrong.

The ability to class people with different rights because of their different circumstances is the foundational core that leads to all kinds of wrong doing.

Men are not "more equal" than women. Whites are not "more equal" than blacks. Hetro are not "more equal" than gay.

And oppressed people are not "more equal" than privileged people.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." -MLK (who believed the statement to be EQUALLY applicable to white people as it is to black people).

I will not deny anyone the rights I have been granted, but I will also not grant them additional rights to which neither of us has any claim.

well said

dculberson wrote: That's reading a lot into a single sentence.

Then choose your words more carefully.

SVreX wrote:

dculberson wrote: That's reading a lot into a single sentence.

Then choose your words more carefully.

Or choose whose opinion I care about.

Calling Marion Barry a crackhead is not racist it is a fact. In fact it should work against him for turning himself into a stereotype that would make the Dave Chapelle show nervous. African-American Mayor of Washington D.C., who was elected railing against the injustice brought upon his black brethren by the evil white politician get caught by the FBI smoking crack. Saying racist things about asians, not paying taxes. And yet the morons of DC keep electing him, Thats a tangent for another time