You're missing my point and actually I don't think you don't want to see it, I'm not against the process or the results so much as long its done in a clean process, if Reid has his fingerprints on this its not clean.
Then you're 100% convinced there was no arm-twisting, deal-making efforts from Reid or you just don't care? To me that's wrong if there was and if it was due years ago it further strengthens my argument that something fishy happen here.
One, he associated Christians with bigotry, but we all know there is no bashing of Christians that you would fine insulting and two its called tolerance, not PC. Isn't there a Tebow thread in here somewhere you can spout your Christian-hating nonsense? Of course if he was a Muslim you would defend him lol.
No he didn't. For the billionth time, you're reading this as if everyone is persecuting you when they are not. And again, you have officially forfeited your right to cry about PC, since that is precisely what you want now (even though no one is insulting Christians)
Stringer, if you were being sued and it was up to a panel of judges, wouldn't you want to make sure that whatever they decide is free of outside influence? I simply don't think it happened here, admittedly I got nothing to back it up except for my gut feelings and the history of Reid being the most despicable human being in DC and someone who has no problem crossing the line to get what he wants
When did I say anyone was persecuting me and for the trillionth time his comment was most definitely an insult that Christians are bigots. Some people are intolerant to Christian beliefs just like some people are intolerant to Muslim beliefs, what we are discussing here has nothing to do with political correctness, as much as you like it to be.
Of course not, the only person who has admitted they are liberal in this place in Fin D and I give him props for that too
Just for ****s and giggles Dol-Fan D what do you call yourself? Because while I haven't ventured into the POFO in quite a while I don't remember us every agreeing on ONE issue and I also have a little Libertarian in me and I'm also a bit liberal on some issues like gay-rights
To be honest I do not understand why Indians are offended by the term. Its no different than calling someone a black guy or a white guy. It implies neither superiority or inferiority. It simply verbally describes a visual difference due to their genetics. Its rather silly to be offended over this and its inappropiate to force an established franchise to rename itself.
No, and it's baffling and bizarrely conspiratorial to suggest the decision came about because of a specific politician. In 1999 the Patent Office came to this exact conclusion, but it was overturned on a technicality involving the plaintiff waiting too long to submit their grievance. Do you understand the guidelines that the Patent Office was supposed to follow in making this decision and have an argument that they came to an incorrect conclusion?
It is inappropriate to revoke a trademark over something as benign as redskin. Was my point not obvious enough that it eluded you?
Whether there was arm-twisting or deal making would be wrong if it occurred. But it is completely irrelevant to the decision itself.
I have never seen you call out or go against a Democrat EVER...With all due respect you're as partisan as they come so when you say no you don't think Reid got involved it's not surprising at all. Also I get a kick when you call it conspiratorial to think otherwise as if politicians and government has never given us enough reasons to doubt them. Why do you buy everything they sell?
And like I said I'm quite indifferent to the decision but quite skeptical of the process to come to said decision.
I don't like calling myself anything. Some of my views would be considered liberal, however most of my views are based on what I think is right. I would gladly vote for a conservative if they seemed like the best person for the job.
It is the same decision they came to in 1999. The appeals court threw it out because the people filed the claim were too old.
So, what? There are loads of pejorative phrases directed at a group of people that fall into the same category as a reference to a distinct physical characteristic. Would you call someone a chink, ******, slope, or something like that? There's loads of them that are more abstract- Would you call someone a "******"?
That's totally impertinent when you can't even begin to answer basic questions that would reasonably suggest this was influenced by outside actors? How did this occur in 1999 then without Harry Reid? What power does Harry Reid have over the Patent Office? For the record, I think Harry Reid is a milquetoast, ineffectual nebbish and rooted openly for him to lose his seat to noted crazy person Sharron Angle.
Then why are you acting like it is a Reid thing now? For 40 years the have been trying to get the name changed.
I am speaking for myself. Are you going to dictate what I should find offensive? I see nothing offensive about the term and nobody has offered me anything compelling enough to change my mind. If a court of law tells them to stick it and allows the name to remain trademarked I will have no issue with it. I really do not care if some NA's have an irrational problem with the term. That is their hang up and something they should learn to live with. There is no offensive intent behind the word and in truth it was originally designated to celebrate the heritage of their coach. It was complimentary to them not insulting. It was named to celebrate and compliment the NA heritage, not that any of that seems to matter to the PC Crusaders who need a cause to rally people around.
YOu are not part of the affected group. Whether you find it offensive is irrelevant. You've had some bad instances, but this may take the cake. Native Americans being offended at a racial slur is "their hang up". Wow.
"I don't care that you have to now walk a thousand miles that way. That's your problem buddy. Just gotta live with it." Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk