The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   Orange Mane Central Discussion (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Patent Office Cancels 'Redskins' (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=115691)

Dr. Broncenstein 06-18-2014 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZONA (Post 4129033)
Steady projects, great pay, no problems. Actually, a software developer I use has finished with a new program that allows for me to make my product better, which in turn is allowing me to charge twice as much as I was previously charging. Just got a new contract all set up with a vendor in CA for over 100 projects at $10K per project (yeah, do the math). Myself and my friend own this business together, takes us about 2 weeks to finish a project. So yeah, I'd say things are great. I'll pull in over $100K annually the next 4 years. What else do I need to elaborate on.

Do you own a business? What issues are you having?

I pay about 150% your annual pay in federal income tax after finding every legal avenue to minimize the hit, after complying with endless and continuously shifting federal regulation regarding every single aspect of my surgical practice and rental property business.

manchambo 06-18-2014 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludo21 (Post 4128989)
And who is to say that if the Natives can pull off MAKING the redskins change their name that some other minority group, PETA, or something else decides that the Lions, or Broncos or Raiders are "offensive" to them?

Just a thought, its radical to think that this could ever happen, but to me it seems like a gateway that will be forever opened if/when the name change happens.

No. I've never even heard someone from PETA suggest those names are offensive and if they did no one else would agree with them. A lion is incapable of offense. This is an idiotic suggestion.

manchambo 06-18-2014 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein (Post 4129041)
I pay about 150% your annual pay in federal income tax after finding every legal avenue to minimize the hit, after complying with endless and continuously shifting federal regulation regarding every single aspect of my surgical practice and rental property business.

Which means that you have something in the neighborhood of 450-500,000 in profits, a point you're making to prove how hard it is to run a small business? My income should be in that general neighborhood as well. I don't think I have it too bad, high taxes notwithstanding.

B-Large 06-18-2014 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn (Post 4129036)
This story has been also checked and said this is not where it came from. You can give us that link and there will also be an article debunking it. Indian names have been used for over a century to honor the fierce warrior they were back from the beginning of our country to probably late 1800s. I wouldn't touch anything named after a tribe or just the word "Indian". The word Redskin, offensive or not at one time, is rarely used as a deragotory name except when we put down the bad Redskin football team and not the name or actual Indians.

like I said, no offense in "Chiefs", "Warriors", "Braves"- because it denotes a brave and proud warrior- something of pride and deeply ingrained in culture. Any wonder why nobody seems to think those names are deeply offensive?

Redskins is the currency of exchange for killing a Native Amercians and getting money for it. Its pretty simple. Do we want one of most recognizeable brands, in the most visual of all athletic leagues to promote that? I sure as heck don't think so. I like to think in 2014, Americans would stand for decency and making reasonable concessions for others... apparently I am wrong.

SonOfLe-loLang 06-18-2014 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn (Post 4129036)
This story has been also checked and said this is not where it came from. You can give us that link and there will also be an article debunking it. Indian names have been used for over a century to honor the fierce warrior they were back from the beginning of our country to probably late 1800s. I wouldn't touch anything named after a tribe or just the word "Indian". The word Redskin, offensive or not at one time, is rarely used as a deragotory name except when we put down the bad Redskin football team and not the name or actual Indians.

I think you're missing the point. Who cares what the history of the word was? The swastika was once some religious symbol wasn't it? It has new meaning now. Its obvious some people take great offense to it. Its the right thing to do to change it.

Dan Snyder can do what he wants. Despite what you guys are claiming, the government isnt making him do anything. But he should change the name It would be the right thing to do

ludo21 06-18-2014 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manchambo (Post 4129043)
No. I've never even heard someone from PETA suggest those names are offensive and if they did no one else would agree with them. A lion is incapable of offense. This is an idiotic suggestion.

Agreed it would idiotic.

I am simply saying the door will be opened for other minority groups to speak loudly at things they dont like to have changed.

also fwiw, I too think the name is offensive to people.

ZONA 06-18-2014 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein (Post 4129031)
Seriously? It's the oldest meme on the internet.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...ain-morans.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn (Post 4129038)
Poor guy. He was protesting a congressman or assembly man (near St Louis so he was a Cards fan) and the last name was "Moran". He will always be remembered incorrectly as the ironic sign for "Moron".

Oh damn, that's too funny. So the dude was being clever, and now most people just think he's a dunce. I guess that truly does give the meaning "perspective" it's due.

SonOfLe-loLang 06-18-2014 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludo21 (Post 4129059)
Agreed it would idiotic.

I am simply saying the door will be opened for other minority groups to speak loudly at things they dont like to have changed.

also fwiw, I too think the name is offensive to people.

I don't agree with this Pandora's Box argument at all. It might open up teams like the Braves/Indians (who should just rename their team Tribe anyway..its cooler and thgats what everyone calls em) to controversy, but no one is gonna complain about animals or whatever.

ZONA 06-18-2014 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein (Post 4129041)
I pay about 150% your annual pay in federal income tax after finding every legal avenue to minimize the hit, after complying with endless and continuously shifting federal regulation regarding every single aspect of my surgical practice and rental property business.

Yeah, ok, well 2 things. Most people are under that $250K threshold and have no problems with their small business. I can totally understand that not so great moment when it comes times to pay your taxes, the amount you have to pay, yeah it would definitely leave me with a feeling of disgust. But then I would think hey, I just cleared some 350-400 thousand, and then I would feel pretty damn good about things in my life.

manchambo 06-18-2014 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludo21 (Post 4129059)
Agreed it would idiotic.

I am simply saying the door will be opened for other minority groups to speak loudly at things they dont like to have changed.

also fwiw, I too think the name is offensive to people.

No door has been opened. The law always and forever has been that the patent office will not protect racially offensive trademarks.

Dr. Broncenstein 06-18-2014 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZONA (Post 4129065)
Yeah, ok, well 2 things. Most people are under that $250K threshold and have no problems with their small business. I can totally understand that not so great moment when it comes times to pay your taxes, the amount you have to pay, yeah it would definitely leave me with a feeling of disgust. But then I would think hey, I just cleared some 350-400 thousand, and then I would feel pretty damn good about things in my life.

Never said I was unhappy. Quite the opposite. Do what I love to do and don't have to worry about money. But the point remains that the government interference is a constant hassle. Especially when reimbursement in your chosen line of business is set by what the government pays, which is essentially the case for every surgical procedure under the sun minus cosmetic surgery.

Agamemnon 06-18-2014 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang (Post 4128852)
It's a tired argument, and I'm not sure what Washington/The NFL is holding on to. Obviously, it bothers people, a lot of people and regardless of whether or not it was intended, it can be seen as offensive. No one will miss it. If you change the name of the team, its not like people will stop watching. Who cares, just change it, sell a buttload of new merch.

I love the idea of calling them the Red Tails. You can honor ww2 african american pilots in a predominant african american league, its a cool namesake, a cool name, would make for a cool logo, and you keep the "red" in the name. Plus, calling them the tails is cool.

1) It will definitely bother some.

2) Red Tails? Eww...

broncocalijohn 06-18-2014 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang (Post 4129057)
I think you're missing the point. Who cares what the history of the word was? The swastika was once some religious symbol wasn't it? It has new meaning now. Its obvious some people take great offense to it. Its the right thing to do to change it.

Dan Snyder can do what he wants. Despite what you guys are claiming, the government isnt making him do anything. But he should change the name It would be the right thing to do

I think you have proved my point. If "Redskin" meant something deragatory in the past, it sure isn't now. So if you want to make sure no one brings back the swatstika even though it was a religious symbol before Hitler got a hold of it then why should we change a name of something that no longer means what it originally was for? You can't have it both ways.

And onto the argument that it was deragatory, B Large has one side as there are other sides where the name came from and it might have been to honor a half breed that was coaching a professional team on the East Coast.

TheElusiveKyleOrton 06-18-2014 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic2 (Post 4128843)
I tried to find the older threads but couldn't.

These fascists like Reid love racism. They need it and survive on the assumption of it to push their agendas. Any rational person can see the name means the war paint used when going into battle. You know, something the redksins do on Sundays. It's symbolic of the courage aloquins(spelling) had when facing battles. With "red" ****ing paint on their "skin". "Redskin". To a person who loves the idea racism can get votes, it means a scalped face.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaah.

No.

**** me, you're a goddamn idiot.

Requiem 06-18-2014 04:31 PM

Aloquins? You must mean Algonquian.

Rother8 06-18-2014 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bombay (Post 4128842)
They have no choice about changing the name now. Anyone can make and sell Redskins gear.

Jersey's would be a no-go with Nike I'd imagine, but ya I'm sure t's and everything else you could think of are being printed up right now

manchambo 06-18-2014 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rother8 (Post 4129120)
Jersey's would be a no-go with Nike I'd imagine, but ya I'm sure t's and everything else you could think of are being printed up right now

The team can probably get the order stayed during appeal.

Tombstone RJ 06-18-2014 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZONA (Post 4129006)
I can totally see Tombstone fighting for slavery rights back in 1860 if he was alive then. Not that he's racist, I don't think he is, but more because he would think it would be against the rights of people to own other people, and what business is it of our government to get involved in something like this. I mean, what if a slave owner back then branded his slaves (which they did) and named them, and had paperwork of ownership on them. Hey, I mean, I have a trademark on them, ownership papers, what rights does the government have to say I can't own a slave, lol.

whatever dude, you continually lower the bar on your own stupidity.

gunns 06-18-2014 05:10 PM

Well looks like this thread will end up where this one ended up because some people just can't help feeling they are right.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthr...18#post3936018

IndelibleScribe 06-18-2014 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bombay (Post 4128952)
I doubt that any derivations of the name are currently protected.

I also doubt that the Washington franchise is prepared to lose revenue to every joe blow who manufactures 'Redskins' gear.

The whole mess is of no consequence to me, personally.

It wouldn't take much to get a copyright for that.
But my guess is they do have deviated words of the name copyrighted.

Arkie 06-18-2014 05:32 PM

The wizards in Harry Potter offend the religious right. Bring the Bullets back to Washington. It's less offensive. Wizards kill people, not wands (nor bullets)

Garcia Bronco 06-18-2014 05:47 PM

Btw...the Chiefs are not named for Indian chiefs. The word Chief is french the last time I looked it up. The Chiefs are named after a former mayor who's nickname was chief.

SonOfLe-loLang 06-18-2014 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn (Post 4129106)
I think you have proved my point. If "Redskin" meant something deragatory in the past, it sure isn't now. So if you want to make sure no one brings back the swatstika even though it was a religious symbol before Hitler got a hold of it then why should we change a name of something that no longer means what it originally was for? You can't have it both ways.

And onto the argument that it was deragatory, B Large has one side as there are other sides where the name came from and it might have been to honor a half breed that was coaching a professional team on the East Coast.

Clearly it is if people are offended by it? How is that proving your point.

I just dont get the big deal if its changed. The only people who will be TRULY offended by a name change are probably a-holes to begin with.

bowtown 06-18-2014 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco (Post 4129143)
Btw...the Chiefs are not named for Indian chiefs. The word Chief is french the last time I looked it up. The Chiefs are named after a former mayor who's nickname was chief.

Wat?

manchambo 06-18-2014 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco (Post 4129143)
Btw...the Chiefs are not named for Indian chiefs. The word Chief is french the last time I looked it up. The Chiefs are named after a former mayor who's nickname was chief.

And that's a French arrowhead on their helmet?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.