The Slants win!!!

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
Last edited by awesome guy on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.)
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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?
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Bay_area_Hokie
Posts: 6026
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:53 am
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Surprise Party

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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
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 541 times
“With God there are only individuals” - Philosopher Nicolas Gomez Davila
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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
User avatar
Bay_area_Hokie
Posts: 6026
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:53 am
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Surprise Party

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by Bay_area_Hokie »

the part about the gong is too much ...
“With God there are only individuals” - Philosopher Nicolas Gomez Davila
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post 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.
Post Reply