I guess it will be tie with Snyder and a few posters here.Daniel Snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, but it's just a matter of time until he is forced to do the right thing and change the name," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has said previously he will not attend home games until the team changes its name.
I can see how Redskin is offensive to some. It isn't to me or some of the Native Americans I know (Now, call them Brass Ankles and you'll get beat.89Hen wrote:I guess it will be tie with Snyder and a few posters here.Daniel Snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, but it's just a matter of time until he is forced to do the right thing and change the name," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has said previously he will not attend home games until the team changes its name.
) But, in the scheme of things. Who cares? I've mellowed from my earlier position. I don't think a public company should be told what it can call itself and we have freedom of speech - even if that speech is hateful. 
kalm wrote:Indians
He's an eagles fan. Nothing he says should be admissible.grizzaholic wrote:sorry. Wrong word. Once it happens ONE TIME, it will happen more and more. What about all the beers and spirits out there with names that could be offensive to someone??? Will they also get in trouble? I just cannot believe you think this is a good thing.89Hen wrote: What "legislation"?
God. Walk down your micro brew row at your local grocery store and just pick one out.89Hen wrote:Please give other examples of truly offensive names.grizzaholic wrote:
sorry. Wrong word. Once it happens ONE TIME, it will happen more and more. What about all the beers and spirits out there with names that could be offensive to someone??? Will they also get in trouble? I just cannot believe you think this is a good thing.
They were for it, before they were against it.Ibanez wrote:I can see how Redskin is offensive to some. It isn't to me or some of the Native Americans I know (Now, call them Brass Ankles and you'll get beat.89Hen wrote: I guess it will be tie with Snyder and a few posters here.
Btw, Native American Indians called themselves Redskins, there is more than enough documented proof of this.
I peruse the isles very often. Can't think of one example.grizzaholic wrote:God. Walk down your micro brew row at your local grocery store and just pick one out.89Hen wrote: Please give other examples of truly offensive names.
I always thought of you as a smart fella, guess I was badly mistaken.
You're a Redskins fan, nothing you say should be admissible.andy7171 wrote:He's an eagles fan. Nothing he says should be admissible.grizzaholic wrote:
sorry. Wrong word. Once it happens ONE TIME, it will happen more and more. What about all the beers and spirits out there with names that could be offensive to someone??? Will they also get in trouble? I just cannot believe you think this is a good thing.
Same with the Boston Red Sox. I think the Washington should change their name to the pink ties.Ibanez wrote:I find the NY Yankees offensive.
I think we should all go to colors and shapes (except for the squares. We don't want to offend any Ivy Leaguer graduates.)
I kind of agree with this. Didn't the Redskins lose their trademarks a few years ago, only to have the district court overturn the ruling? How does this not happen again?CID1990 wrote:This sure is along thread about a ruling that is going to be overturned on appeal.
"Public company"?Ibanez wrote:I don't think a public company...
Btw, Native American Indians called themselves Redskins, there is more than enough documented proof of this.
I might be thinking of another team, but wasn't there a letter of support in the 1930s?DSUrocks07 wrote:They were for it, before they were against it.Ibanez wrote: I can see how Redskin is offensive to some. It isn't to me or some of the Native Americans I know (Now, call them Brass Ankles and you'll get beat.
Btw, Native American Indians called themselves Redskins, there is more than enough documented proof of this.
That is because YOU aren't offended.89Hen wrote:I peruse the isles very often. Can't think of one example.grizzaholic wrote:
God. Walk down your micro brew row at your local grocery store and just pick one out.
I always thought of you as a smart fella, guess I was badly mistaken.
Sorry, I meant private.89Hen wrote:"Public company"?Ibanez wrote:I don't think a public company...
Btw, Native American Indians called themselves Redskins, there is more than enough documented proof of this.
BTW, many blacks call themselves words that are forbidden from even being verbalized on most news sources. Point?
Give me some examples big man.grizzaholic wrote:That is because YOU aren't offended.89Hen wrote: I peruse the isles very often. Can't think of one example.
But then they would have the liberal thought police on their asses, "They still know what it means!!!!!"GannonFan wrote:I kind of agree with this. Didn't the Redskins lose their trademarks a few years ago, only to have the district court overturn the ruling? How does this not happen again?CID1990 wrote:This sure is along thread about a ruling that is going to be overturned on appeal.
Hey, if they call themselves the Redskins but lose the Indian imagery on the uniforms and elsewhere would that still work?
Blackhawks and Seminoles are examples of honorific Indian mascots. They actually do support the tribes and have the respect and support of the tribes.Ibanez wrote: Btw, If the name is used in honor of something, it really isn't being used offensively. Is it not? Nobody would logically name their team something that will not be marketable, for instance.
To what?89crotchetyoldhen wrote:How are those similar bandal?
