+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 91
  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by BronxBomberBlue View Post
    It's a friggin nickname of his NFL football team,
    It's his trademarked brand name and intellectual property rights. The Washington Redskin's name and symbol are no different then the Playboy Bunny name and symbol, or any band's name and symbol that may contain hints of satanic worship or anything else the Moral Orel's cry about. Offended feelings does not alter property rights.

    that has received public tax paying funding for his private property football team to play in. If you're going to accept public money for your brand new, state of the art, football stadium, then you better not offend anybody in the American public... That means anybody, no matter how small the group is, or how unimportant that group is to "you" personally.
    That is simply false. Just because politicians choose to take money from Larry to give to Peter and Paul does not mean Peter and Paul have lost their rights. I agree that governments at every level should not be trying to increase individual's finances. If what your arguing was true, every time someone went on Welfare or government assistance they would have to curtail their natural rights. That isn't what happens. People on welfare can own property! Your rights on not based on government assistance. They are self evident, and exist no matter what the government does, even when the government is violating them it doesn't mean they don't exist, it means the state is in the wrong.

    DESTROY??? How is it being destroyed?
    They've taken his right away from him so that people outside the Washington Redskin's can make money on their brand. It would be like people putting out pornography and selling it under the Playboy Bunny symbol and name without giving anything to Hugh Hefner, and claiming that the product being purchased is being produced by the Playboy Company even when it isn't. It would be like a group of people calling themselves the WWE and touring the world claiming that they are the same company owned by Vince McMahon even when they aren't. It's the same as someone writing a Harry Potter novel without getting permission from J.K. Rowling.

    When you buy a product based on a named brand, what you are doing is financing something that you are endorsing by buying it, with the caveat that you are buying from the individuals that you think you are. In other words I can not build a McDonald's, use their golden arches, sell their hamburgers, and take credit for it because I don't own McDonald's! People would be coming to my fake McDonald's not because they want to endorse me, but because they think they are getting the same standard that can be found in other McDonald restaurants including prices, styles, and taste. In other words I am making money off of their brand and image, which is the same thing as stealing from them.

    People expect a certain type of product when they pay for something. What they have done is said that outside forces can now make money off of the Redskin's name without the approval of the Washington Redskins. It's like writing books under and author's name without their permission. Or putting out songs claiming you are a certain band when you aren't! I maybe able to get a group together that sounds like Metallica, that doesn't mean I can use their name, brand, and songs without their permission, because I don't own that trademark, and ultimately they are not Metallica!

    What they have done is stripped Snyder of his property rights, and that is wrong.

    Synder is going to make a ton of money, if and when the fan base has to buy new merchandise!!!
    And so are other people who have nothing to do with Snyder or the Redskins! They are going to be making wealth off of something they have absolutely nothing to do with! They are stealing from Snyder, his company, and the people who work for him.

    You're blowing this way out of proportion. No way in hell is this stand off (by Snyder) "destroying" Synder's brand!
    You are underestimating what is happening here. What is happening is the state is telling the world that Dan Snyder does not own the rights to the Washington Redskin's trademark and brand. Which means that any griffter, second rate store, or any company at all, can make and create products with the Washington Redskin's brand on it and sell them without giving anything to Snyder. That's wrong. That is an abuse of his rights plan and simple.

    By the way, was there an uproar when St John's changed their nickname from the "Red-Men', to the "Red-Storm"? Not in the least!!!
    I don't have a problem with a person, group, or organization freely choosing to change their name. I have a problem with the state denying a person their rights because of political motivations which is what is happening.

    So please spare me with this drama filled diatribe about government dictatorship, and Sydner being a victim here.
    Your simply wrong, and do not seem to understand what is going on. What is happening here is nothing less then the destruction of a person's property rights at the alter of a political cause, because of a vocal minority of Moral Orels, who is using the power of the state to get what they want.

    It's a friggin nickname. Just change it already so we can stop talking about this!!!
    No it isn't. It's a trademarked brand that Daniel Snyder owns. It is his property rights, and it's his choice how to use those rights. No moral outrage changes that. Every person has rights. Hugh Hefner has rights,J.K Rowling has rights,Marilyn Manson has rights, and yes Daniel Snyder has rights. And no matter what you or anyone think about their products and brands it does not change that fundamental fact.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by BronxBomberBlue View Post
    Oh really? Which Amendment? I'm dying to know.

    Yes, he does maintain his "treasured racist trademark" while it's under appeal.

    FREE DANNY!!! FREE DANNY!!!
    The Commerce Clause is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. Which is what is used with discussing Trademarks. Other copyrights are dealt with with the Copyright Clause. Which is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.

  3. #53
    Veteran BronxBomberBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Suffolk County
    Posts
    1,557
    Very impressive, Bing. Are you an attorney? I'm not, so I'm not exactly sure what is the difference between a "Commerce Clause", and an actual "Amendment" from the US Constitution.

    However, I did find this regarding the the US Patent and Trademark Office, who cancelled the trademark "nickname" on the Washington NFL football franchise.

    "Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that "may disparage" individuals or groups."

    We'll see how much teeth that statement has as Daniel Snyder fights to keep his football team's "disparaging" nickname.



    The Drive for Super Bowl Championship #5!!!

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by BronxBomberBlue View Post
    Very impressive, Bing. Are you an attorney? I'm not, so I'm not exactly sure what is the difference between a "Commerce Clause", and an actual "Amendment" from the US Constitution.

    However, I did find this regarding the the US Patent and Trademark Office, who cancelled the trademark "nickname" on the Washington NFL football franchise.

    "Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that "may disparage" individuals or groups."

    We'll see how much teeth that statement has as Daniel Snyder fights to keep his football team's "disparaging" nickname.
    All the Commerce Clause really is in this day and age, is a way for the federal congress to get around the 10th amendment (powers not specifically granted to the Congress are reserved to the states) and do things across the country that is normally territory of the state governments. That's why things like legal drinking age are set to 21 at every state. Congress has no authority to set drinking age, but they tied drinking age to getting federal highway funding using the Commerce Clause. Technically, any state at any time could set the drinking age lower, but then they lose out on some federal money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercury View Post
    We need a tight end,
    repeat, again and again
    ToadofSteel's mantra.

  5. #55
    Veteran BronxBomberBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Suffolk County
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Toadofsteel View Post
    All the Commerce Clause really is in this day and age, is a way for the federal congress to get around the 10th amendment (powers not specifically granted to the Congress are reserved to the states) and do things across the country that is normally territory of the state governments. That's why things like legal drinking age are set to 21 at every state. Congress has no authority to set drinking age, but they tied drinking age to getting federal highway funding using the Commerce Clause. Technically, any state at any time could set the drinking age lower, but then they lose out on some federal money.


    Thanks, Toad..



    The Drive for Super Bowl Championship #5!!!

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Toadofsteel View Post
    All the Commerce Clause really is in this day and age, is a way for the federal congress to get around the 10th amendment (powers not specifically granted to the Congress are reserved to the states) and do things across the country that is normally territory of the state governments. That's why things like legal drinking age are set to 21 at every state. Congress has no authority to set drinking age, but they tied drinking age to getting federal highway funding using the Commerce Clause. Technically, any state at any time could set the drinking age lower, but then they lose out on some federal money.
    The interpretation has once again shifted and has become more restrictive. Congress enjoyed immense freedom of interpretation of the clause from the post depression era till early turn of the century. As of 2003, Congress has become restricted in their interpretation and use although they still have a good deal of leeway.

    If the decision against Snyder stands on appeal it will set a terrible precedent. His trademark represents one of the most profitable brands in sports and it is disturbing that the legal system is going outside it's sphere of responsibility due to political pressure.
    The last time this issue went to court, it took 11 years. As much as I can't stand the team, I have to side with Snyder here and hope that he wins this.

  7. #57
    Veteran BronxBomberBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Suffolk County
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by MagillasMango View Post
    If the decision against Snyder stands on appeal it will set a terrible precedent. His trademark represents one of the most profitable brands in sports and it is disturbing that the legal system is going outside it's sphere of responsibility due to political pressure.
    The last time this issue went to court, it took 11 years. As much as I can't stand the team, I have to side with Snyder here and hope that he wins this.

    I disagree..

    If Snyder wins his appeal, it will set a terrible precedent. American society wasn't so sensitive to racial disparaging nicknames back in the early part of last century, but we're in the 21st century now. Lets try to be more sensitive and compassionate to other groups, like the Native Americans who find the nickname "Red-Skins" offensive. Not the opposite, by going back in time, and being less sensitive and compassionate.

    It's the only way we we'll improve as a society for future generations of Americans.



    The Drive for Super Bowl Championship #5!!!

  8. #58
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    500

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by BronxBomberBlue View Post
    So why can't we have the same attitude with the name changing of the nickname, "Red-Skins"?
    I'll go in the other direction on this, let's change the name: Whiteskins. The silence would be deafening BBB.
    I'm generally a tolerent person, hard right on fiscal matters, drift toward the center/left socially. What burns my *** is the easily offended groups, any of them.
    BBB, what of the Native Americans that couldn't give a **** less or the Native Americans that like or find pride in the name Washington Redskins? Instead we find ourselves trying to appease every knucklehead that has a beef about something said. Or in short, don't take ourselves so seriously and grow a frickin' pair. BBB, turn the sensitivity dial back a few, that's how we grow forward on these racial issues. If we don't, where does appeasement end?

  9. #59
    Veteran BronxBomberBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Suffolk County
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by STAR View Post
    I'll go in the other direction on this, let's change the name: Whiteskins. The silence would be deafening BBB.
    I'm generally a tolerent person, hard right on fiscal matters, drift toward the center/left socially. What burns my *** is the easily offended groups, any of them.
    BBB, what of the Native Americans that couldn't give a **** less or the Native Americans that like or find pride in the name Washington Redskins? Instead we find ourselves trying to appease every knucklehead that has a beef about something said. Or in short, don't take ourselves so seriously and grow a frickin' pair. BBB, turn the sensitivity dial back a few, that's how we grow forward on these racial issues. If we don't, where does appeasement end?




    When it comes to loss of "property", look into what Native Americans went through 200 to 300 years ago. They got SLAUGHTERED for their property!! It's a pretty BRUTAL history..

    The least we can do is change something that should be so "minor to us", yet "very offensive to them". Many other teams have changed their nicknames for this reason. There's no reason why Dan Snyder can't do the "right thing' and do the same.


    Oh, and now this part..


    As far as me "growing a frickin pair". I've had to grow a " BIG frickin pair" to defend my "Colombian born" girlfriend on many occasions. Who has dealt with **** her whole life here. Stuff that ignorant people like yourself can't even fathom!! My eyes have been opened WIDE over the last five years, thanks to what I've witnessed in her life, and in her immediate family's!!

    So your DEAD *** WRONG, in thinking that "turning the sensitivity dial back a few" is the way we grow forward on these racial issues. Minorities are playing in professional sports, and going to the University of Alabama, etc, because the "sensitivity dial" was TURNED UP, not down!!!

    When does appeasement end, you ask? When every aspect of "racism ends", and it's still alive and well!!!! (Your attitude on this issue is proof of that!). Sndyer's stance definitely doesn't help either!!!!


    PS: Whiteskins?? You think you're being clever in trying to make a point, by going in "that direction"? Please!!



    The Drive for Super Bowl Championship #5!!!

  10. #60
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by BronxBomberBlue View Post
    When it comes to loss of "property", look into what Native Americans went through 200 to 300 years ago. They got SLAUGHTERED for their property!! It's a pretty BRUTAL history..

    -Throughout history, that's a given most anywhere with native populations. So we're going back that far to apologize, this is my point, where does the apology tour end.


    The least we can do is change something that should be so "minor to us", yet "very offensive to them". Many other teams have changed their nicknames for this reason. There's no reason why Dan Snyder can't do the "right thing' and do the same.


    Oh, and now this part..


    As far as me "growing a frickin pair". I've had to grow a " BIG frickin pair" to defend my "Colombian born" girlfriend on many occasions. Who has dealt with **** her whole life here. Stuff that ignorant people like yourself can't even fathom!! My eyes have been opened WIDE over the last five years, thanks to what I've witnessed in her life, and in her immediate family's!!

    -That wasn't directed at you personally, generally speaking. Sorry, should have been more specific BBB!

    So your DEAD *** WRONG, in thinking that "turning the sensitivity dial back a few" is the way we grow forward on these racial issues. Minorities are playing in professional sports, and going to the University of Alabama, etc, because the "sensitivity dial" was TURNED UP, not down!!!

    -We have a black president, who got in Oprah's way, black-female...billions,she didn't get there on looks BBB, she got there on talent and embraced Capitalism
    When does it stop? When do we rid ourselves of affirmative action and let non white cut their own path to prosperity without the use of a crutch? Or a lawyer?

    When does appeasement end, you ask? When every aspect of "racism ends", and it's still alive and well!!!! (Your attitude on this issue is proof of that!). Sndyer's stance definitely doesn't help either!!!!

    -Well, there is my answer. Never


    PS: Whiteskins?? You think you're being clever in trying to make a point, by going in "that direction"? Please!!

    -A very specific point! One way street.
    (Not sure how this got outside the quote regarding your P.S.) Welllll, right or wrong, don't duck it, be truthful? Crickets I'd think.
    Last edited by STAR; 06-21-2014 at 07:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts