Page 2 of 3

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:45 pm
by USN_Hokie
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:53 pm
by VisorBoy
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:54 pm
by USN_Hokie
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:56 pm
by awesome guy
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:58 pm
by USN_Hokie
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:59 pm
by USN_Hokie
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:01 pm
by awesome guy
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:15 pm
by VisorBoy
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:20 pm
by nolanvt
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.

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.
Watching you make things up is one of my favorite things about UWS. Keep up the good work. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:20 pm
by BigDave
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.)

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:25 pm
by awesome guy
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:40 pm
by VisorBoy
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:10 am
by HokieJoe
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?

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:18 am
by Bay_area_Hokie
It could have been worse, as evidenced by an excerpt from this, the history of Pekin Illinois, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekin,_Illinois

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:39 am
by USN_Hokie
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. [emoji106]


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."
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... slur#p8781

You even responded to a post where H2 called it a slur 3 times with "great post"
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... lur#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. "
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... slur#p7049

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

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:45 am
by USN_Hokie
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

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:46 am
by Bay_area_Hokie
the part about the gong is too much ...

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:02 am
by ip_law-hokie
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

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:23 am
by USN_Hokie
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:27 am
by awesome guy
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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:29 am
by nolanvt
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. [emoji106]


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."
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... slur#p8781

You even responded to a post where H2 called it a slur 3 times with "great post"
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... lur#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. "
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... 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

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:31 am
by awesome guy
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. [emoji106]


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."
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... slur#p8781

You even responded to a post where H2 called it a slur 3 times with "great post"
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... lur#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. "
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... 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.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:44 am
by nolanvt
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. [emoji106]


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."
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... slur#p8781

You even responded to a post where H2 called it a slur 3 times with "great post"
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... lur#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. "
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... 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

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:49 am
by awesome guy
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

Re: The Slants win!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:53 am
by USN_Hokie
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.