United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:56 pm

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18530
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
BigDave wrote:
Nolan said that as a fan, he favors the name changing. He never said the government should force them to change the name.

http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5702&start=100



He said it was a slur. He said opponents of the name considered it a slur. He argued for opponents of the name and started numerous threads on the topic while feigning disinterest.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2914
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.


I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.

By approving one party's use of a trademark, they are necessarily refusing the right of all other parties to use the same speech freely.

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18530
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!

What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?



because it affirmed the 1st amendment.

Whichever way SCOTUS ruled could be considered as a protection/interpretation of the Constitution, as that is their very role. The opposite decision may not align with someone's opinion, but it doesn't mean that the Constitution is necessarily not upheld.


Some liberal justices have famously argued that governing documents of other countries should be considered when making decisions. Ginsburg has publicly said she prefers the south African constitution to our own. Even conservative justices refer to foreign documents (for example, Blackstone) to help better understand the context of our constitution.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.


I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.

By approving one party's use of a trademark, they are necessarily refusing the right of all other parties to use the same speech freely.



Article I Section 8. Clause 8 says hi. Of course you're not really arguing for everyone to say chink, (racial slur censored by rule), or whatever. Do better.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18530
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.


I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.

By approving one party's use of a trademark, they are necessarily refusing the right of all other parties to use the same speech freely.


Paging IP,

IP, your presence is requested in this thread.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18530
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.


I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.

By approving one party's use of a trademark, they are necessarily refusing the right of all other parties to use the same speech freely.



Article I Section 8. Clause 8 says hi. Of course you're not really arguing for everyone to say chink, (racial slur censored by rule), or whatever. Do better.


VisorBoy is trying to impose his own beliefs on others again. He's been quite clear that he doesn't believe in property rights.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.


I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.

By approving one party's use of a trademark, they are necessarily refusing the right of all other parties to use the same speech freely.



Article I Section 8. Clause 8 says hi. Of course you're not really arguing for everyone to say chink, (racial slur censored by rule), or whatever. Do better.


VisorBoy is trying to impose his own beliefs on others again. He's been quite clear that he doesn't believe in property rights.



VB believes in VB supremacy, everything else is semantics. I can appreciate that on some level, he's too elitists though to share that right with everyone else, thusly being an authoritarian.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Last edited by awesome guy on Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2914
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.


I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.

By approving one party's use of a trademark, they are necessarily refusing the right of all other parties to use the same speech freely.



Article I Section 8. Clause 8 says hi. Of course you're not really arguing for everyone to say chink, (racial slur censored by rule), or whatever. Do better.

I'm not arguing against the government's role in affirming intellectual property. Of course the Constitution protects that. But not everything can be trademarked. And that was the question before the Court. That is, it was about whether this specific instance could be considered trademark-able.

I challenged UpstateSCHokie's use of 'patriotic' in defending the decision because it presumes that a reasonable argument affirming the Constitution and defending the country could only be made for the winning side. Just because you don't have the opinion that the other side is Constitutional or in America's best interest doesn't mean that a reasonable person (and 4 justices, mind you) couldn't find it to be. Both sides were trying to do what's best for America as they saw fit.

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:01 pm
Posts: 8504
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.
USN_Hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:
Nolan said that as a fan, he favors the name changing. He never said the government should force them to change the name.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5702&start=100



He said it was a slur. He said opponents of the name considered it a slur. He argued for opponents of the name and started numerous threads on the topic while feigning disinterest.


Watching you make things up is one of my favorite things about UWS. Keep up the good work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:20 pm
Posts: 5299
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican
awesome guy wrote:
Article I Section 8. Clause 8 says hi. Of course you're not really arguing for everyone to say chink, (racial slur censored by rule), or whatever. Do better.


That's patents and copyright. I don't see trademark in there. (I'm not arguing against trademark - certainly the government has a compelling interest in preventing the fraud that would arise from a lack of trademark law. I'm only pointing out that the government's authority to pass trademark laws comes from the commerce clause, not from the IP clause.)

_________________
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.


I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.

By approving one party's use of a trademark, they are necessarily refusing the right of all other parties to use the same speech freely.



Article I Section 8. Clause 8 says hi. Of course you're not really arguing for everyone to say chink, (racial slur censored by rule), or whatever. Do better.

I'm not arguing against the government's role in affirming intellectual property. Of course the Constitution protects that. But not everything can be trademarked. And that was the question before the Court. That is, it was about whether this specific instance could be considered trademark-able.

I challenged UpstateSCHokie's use of 'patriotic' in defending the decision because it presumes that a reasonable argument affirming the Constitution and defending the country could only be made for the winning side. Just because you don't have the opinion that the other side is Constitutional or in America's best interest doesn't mean that a reasonable person (and 4 justices, mind you) couldn't find it to be. Both sides were trying to do what's best for America as they saw fit.



Doing what you think is best isn't synonymous with being constitutional. Again, it's semantics as you're only concern is claiming the phrase in question is offensive. That's by definition a limit on speech, with no constitutional basis to do so. The only contention is against an amendment that doesn't exist.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2914
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.


I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.

By approving one party's use of a trademark, they are necessarily refusing the right of all other parties to use the same speech freely.



Article I Section 8. Clause 8 says hi. Of course you're not really arguing for everyone to say chink, (racial slur censored by rule), or whatever. Do better.

I'm not arguing against the government's role in affirming intellectual property. Of course the Constitution protects that. But not everything can be trademarked. And that was the question before the Court. That is, it was about whether this specific instance could be considered trademark-able.

I challenged UpstateSCHokie's use of 'patriotic' in defending the decision because it presumes that a reasonable argument affirming the Constitution and defending the country could only be made for the winning side. Just because you don't have the opinion that the other side is Constitutional or in America's best interest doesn't mean that a reasonable person (and 4 justices, mind you) couldn't find it to be. Both sides were trying to do what's best for America as they saw fit.



Doing what you think is best isn't synonymous with being constitutional. Again, it's semantics as you're only concern is claiming the phrase in question is offensive. That's by definition a limit on speech, with no constitutional basis to do so. The only contention is against an amendment that doesn't exist.

The issue before the Court was not whether a term could not be used, so claiming offense wouldn't be a limit on speech.

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:12 am
Posts: 4917
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.


I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.

By approving one party's use of a trademark, they are necessarily refusing the right of all other parties to use the same speech freely.


Welcome to United States trademark laws?

_________________
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire


"Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat" Karl Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:53 pm
Posts: 2684
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Surprise Party
It could have been worse, as evidenced by an excerpt from this, the history of Pekin Illinois, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekin,_Illinois


Attachments:
Screen Shot 2017-06-19 at 5.16.48 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-06-19 at 5.16.48 PM.png [ 96.82 KiB | Viewed 233 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18530
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
nolanvt wrote:
[quote="USN_Hokie"

He said it was a slur. He said opponents of the name considered it a slur. He argued for opponents of the name and started numerous threads on the topic while feigning disinterest.


Watching you make things up is one of my favorite things about UWS. Keep up the good work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

I was paraphrasing exactly what you said. Rhetoric isn't your strong suit, is it?

You said it was a slur:
"Of all of the Indian mascots out there, I think the only one that could be offensive and categorized as a slur is Redskins."
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1173&p=8781&hilit=redskins+slur#p8781

You even responded to a post where H2 called it a slur 3 times with "great post"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5454&p=44635&hilit=redskins+slur#p44635

You said opponents of the name considered it a slur and you argue for opponents in this thread as you did repeatedly:
"The assertion from the anti-Redskins contingent is that the name is a slur. "
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=970&p=7049&hilit=redskins+slur#p7049

Have a nice day. Next time, stand behind your arguments. Be assertive.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18530
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
Bay_area_Hokie wrote:
It could have been worse, as evidenced by an excerpt from this, the history of Pekin Illinois, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekin,_Illinois


I had to look that one up...that's hilarious.

Image
Image
Image

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:53 pm
Posts: 2684
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Surprise Party
the part about the gong is too much ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9136
Location: New York, NY
USN_Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!

What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?



because it affirmed the 1st amendment.

Whichever way SCOTUS ruled could be considered as a protection/interpretation of the Constitution, as that is their very role. The opposite decision may not align with someone's opinion, but it doesn't mean that the Constitution is necessarily not upheld.


Some liberal justices have famously argued that governing documents of other countries should be considered when making decisions. Ginsburg has publicly said she prefers the south African constitution to our own. Even conservative justices refer to foreign documents (for example, Blackstone) to help better understand the context of our constitution.


Cite?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18530
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!

What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?



because it affirmed the 1st amendment.

Whichever way SCOTUS ruled could be considered as a protection/interpretation of the Constitution, as that is their very role. The opposite decision may not align with someone's opinion, but it doesn't mean that the Constitution is necessarily not upheld.


Some liberal justices have famously argued that governing documents of other countries should be considered when making decisions. Ginsburg has publicly said she prefers the south African constitution to our own. Even conservative justices refer to foreign documents (for example, Blackstone) to help better understand the context of our constitution.


Cite?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sure.

" I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/06/wh ... n-so-much/

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,”

...

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/u ... sburg.html

I would call RBG one of the worst associate justices on the court, but then I remembered that we have Sotomayor.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
USN_Hokie wrote:
Sure.

" I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/06/wh ... n-so-much/

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,”

...

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/u ... sburg.html

I would call RBG one of the worst associate justices on the court, but then I remembered that we have Sotomayor.



They're awful for sure. Should really be impeached they're so awful, treasonous.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:01 pm
Posts: 8504
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.
USN_Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
[quote="USN_Hokie"

He said it was a slur. He said opponents of the name considered it a slur. He argued for opponents of the name and started numerous threads on the topic while feigning disinterest.


Watching you make things up is one of my favorite things about UWS. Keep up the good work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was paraphrasing exactly what you said. Rhetoric isn't your strong suit, is it?

You said it was a slur:
"Of all of the Indian mascots out there, I think the only one that could be offensive and categorized as a slur is Redskins."
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1173&p=8781&hilit=redskins+slur#p8781

You even responded to a post where H2 called it a slur 3 times with "great post"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5454&p=44635&hilit=redskins+slur#p44635

You said opponents of the name considered it a slur and you argue for opponents in this thread as you did repeatedly:
"The assertion from the anti-Redskins contingent is that the name is a slur. "
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=970&p=7049&hilit=redskins+slur#p7049

Have a nice day. Next time, stand behind your arguments. Be assertive.[/quote]

Thank you for proving my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
nolanvt wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
[quote="USN_Hokie"

He said it was a slur. He said opponents of the name considered it a slur. He argued for opponents of the name and started numerous threads on the topic while feigning disinterest.


Watching you make things up is one of my favorite things about UWS. Keep up the good work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was paraphrasing exactly what you said. Rhetoric isn't your strong suit, is it?

You said it was a slur:
"Of all of the Indian mascots out there, I think the only one that could be offensive and categorized as a slur is Redskins."
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1173&p=8781&hilit=redskins+slur#p8781

You even responded to a post where H2 called it a slur 3 times with "great post"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5454&p=44635&hilit=redskins+slur#p44635

You said opponents of the name considered it a slur and you argue for opponents in this thread as you did repeatedly:
"The assertion from the anti-Redskins contingent is that the name is a slur. "
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=970&p=7049&hilit=redskins+slur#p7049

Have a nice day. Next time, stand behind your arguments. Be assertive.


Thank you for proving my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Have some integrity, he got you.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:01 pm
Posts: 8504
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.
awesome guy wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
[quote="USN_Hokie"

He said it was a slur. He said opponents of the name considered it a slur. He argued for opponents of the name and started numerous threads on the topic while feigning disinterest.


Watching you make things up is one of my favorite things about UWS. Keep up the good work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was paraphrasing exactly what you said. Rhetoric isn't your strong suit, is it?

You said it was a slur:
"Of all of the Indian mascots out there, I think the only one that could be offensive and categorized as a slur is Redskins."
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1173&p=8781&hilit=redskins+slur#p8781

You even responded to a post where H2 called it a slur 3 times with "great post"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5454&p=44635&hilit=redskins+slur#p44635

You said opponents of the name considered it a slur and you argue for opponents in this thread as you did repeatedly:
"The assertion from the anti-Redskins contingent is that the name is a slur. "
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=970&p=7049&hilit=redskins+slur#p7049

Have a nice day. Next time, stand behind your arguments. Be assertive.


Thank you for proving my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Have some integrity, he got you.[/quote]

He cited posts where:

1) I did not call the name a slur.

2) Commended H2 for bringing additional context and history to the discussion.

3) Accurately stated that opponents of the name (which I'm not a part of) consider it a slur.

I appreciate USN doing my research for me to further support my earlier assertions in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
nolanvt wrote:
He cited posts where:

1) I did not call the name a slur.

2) Commended H2 for bringing additional context and history to the discussion.

3) Accurately stated that opponents of the name (which I'm not a part of) consider it a slur.

I appreciate USN doing my research for me to further support my earlier assertions in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Naw, he broke it down nicely and proved his point. It's your MO to post a lot about things that you claim later to not care about. As was pointed out, you just agreed and high fived all the posts calling it a slur and demanding a change. Somehow, in 1st grade reasoning, that's not a show of support? Could just you being a partisan which is also typical of ya, but he made the better case and better luck to you in the future Chief.


Image

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Slants win!!!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18530
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
nolanvt wrote:
He cited posts where:

1) I did not call the name a slur.

2) Commended H2 for bringing additional context and history to the discussion.

3) Accurately stated that opponents of the name (which I'm not a part of) consider it a slur.

I appreciate USN doing my research for me to further support my earlier assertions in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The last time I saw a defense that pathetic, Bill Clinton had gotten a Bj from an intern.

Be a man. Stand for something. Own your eff ups. You thought it was offensive and argued in for those wanting to change it.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!