The Slants win!!!
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:54 pm
Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
https://uwsboard.com/
Major Kong wrote:Justices say law on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep. VB was more of the anti-redskins crusaderUpstateSCHokie wrote:Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're correct. Nolan and the unusuals have selective memory when it suits them.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It appears the Usuals have conflated legality with good taste.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I said it makes business sense for the NFL to change the name if the trademark were to be no longer legally enforceable. That's Business 101-type stuff.awesome guy wrote:uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's your typical derpy response of creating a business crisis and then calling it a business decision. Thug.nolanvt wrote:I said it makes business sense for the NFL to change the name if the trademark were to be no longer legally enforceable. That's Business 101-type stuff.awesome guy wrote:uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It appears the Unusuals have conflated illegality with good taste.ip_law-hokie wrote:It appears the Usuals have conflated legality with good taste.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
VisorBoy wrote:What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
I've never said the Redskins name was offensive.awesome guy wrote:That's your typical derpy response of creating a business crisis and then calling it a business decision. Thug.nolanvt wrote:I said it makes business sense for the NFL to change the name if the trademark were to be no longer legally enforceable. That's Business 101-type stuff.awesome guy wrote:uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.nolanvt wrote: You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins name was offensive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Of all of the Indian mascots out there, I think the only one that could be offensive and categorized as a slur is Redskins."nolanvt wrote: I've never said the Redskins name was offensive.
"Hail to the Redskins!"Major Kong wrote:Justices say law on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional
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.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
VisorBoy wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
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'.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
Come on dude, you're better than this.
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.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'.