Originally posted by no1marauder
When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Businesses are asking the government to restrict other people's speech when they desire the legal protection of trademarks. Congress has allowed this under its regulatory power over commerce, but set certain restrictions on what can be used as a trademark. The dispute is over the finding of a board established by ...[text shortened]... le first as per established procedure. So your hysteria is doubly wrong and particularly stupid.

I'll wager that the Redskins will be slighted and denied their trademark and SCOTUS will uphold the ruling.

What say you?

Originally posted by whodey
I could care less about the legal aspects of this case other than the word "Redskins" is being censored in the business realm.

So according to the fab 9, anything they deem offensive will be censored.

It really makes no sense to say you don't care about the legal aspects of a legal case. If that is true, then just don't bother with the issue rather than let other people do the "thinking" for you.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It really makes no sense to say you don't care about the legal aspects of a legal case. If that is true, then just don't bother with the issue rather than let other people do the "thinking" for you.

My whole point here is that the law railroads a football team because of political correctness which stems from the usage of the word "Redskins".

As has been pointed out, the state is not restricting the term to be used but what they will do is take away any profits associated with the usage of the word, which translates into the team changing the name like they wanted all along

It's simply a rather clever way to restrict free speech. The state will now dictate to you what they find offensive and what they do not through such tactics.

In terms of the law, the law is a whore. Just look at what goes on. For example, Marauder himself came out and said that Obama violated the War Powers Act, and nothing is done about it.. In fact, Marauder did not demand he comply with the law in any way and spends most of his time defending Hillary and company who has also seemed to have violated the law on more than one occasion.

So really the law does not matter, power does. The law only applies to those who don't have power.

Originally posted by whodey
My whole point here is that the law railroads a football team because of political correctness which stems from the usage of the word "Redskins".

As has been pointed out, the state is not restricting the term to be used but what they will do is take away any profits associated with the usage of the word, which translates into the team changing the name lik ...[text shortened]... really the law does not matter, power does. The law only applies to those who don't have power.

You really don't know anything about the case.

Trademark Law allows aggrieved parties to file a petition to revoke "offensive" trademarks. That is just what a number of Native American tribes and organizations did here. So it was not the "State" enforcing some so-called "political correctness" but private individuals and organizations following the law. So your entire premise is BS from the start. The law banning "offensive" trademarks has been in effect for over 70 years; it's not some recent power grab by the State.

Do some homework next time, whodey.

Originally posted by whodey
In terms of the law, the law is a whore. Just look at what goes on. For example, Marauder himself came out and said that Obama violated the War Powers Act, and nothing is done about it.. In fact, Marauder did not demand he comply with the law in any way and spends most of his time defending Hillary and company who has also seemed to have violated the law o ...[text shortened]... really the law does not matter, power does. The law only applies to those who don't have power.

The law is far from perfect and generally benefits the rich more than the poor. However, the day the law becomes the illogical twisted madness that you propound is the day the world ends.

Seriously, you believe that because Marauder said that Obama broke a law you believe that is good reason for him to fail to defend Hillary from false accusations? You lack honesty, logic, common sense, and just about anything else associated with the law. I am not surprised you hate it so much.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You really don't know anything about the case.

Trademark Law allows aggrieved parties to file a petition to revoke "offensive" trademarks. That is just what a number of Native American tribes and organizations did here. So it was not the "State" enforcing some so-called "political correctness" but private individuals and organizations following the l ...[text shortened]... r 70 years; it's not some recent power grab by the State.

Do some homework next time, whodey.

So if I want to destroy a trademark all that is needed is a number of petitions to say it is offensive?

Originally posted by twhitehead


Seriously, you believe that because Marauder said that Obama broke a law you believe that is good reason for him to fail to defend Hillary from false accusations? You lack honesty, logic, common sense, and just about anything else associated with the law. I am not surprised you hate it so much.[/b]

That makes no sense.

My issue is that Marauder admitted Obama broke the War Powers Act by not consulting Congress, but failed to demand he be held accountable for that. Hillary was also part of the mess being Secretary of State.

Not only does he not seem to feel that either should face consequences for breaking the law, he then defends Hillary from further allegations regarding giving top secret information away that would cost anyone else their job and probably do prison time.

That's what you call a partisan shill.

Originally posted by whodey
That makes no sense.

My issue is that Marauder admitted Obama broke the War Powers Act by not consulting Congress, but failed to demand he be held accountable for that. Hillary was also part of the mess being Secretary of State.

Not only does he not seem to feel that either should face consequences for breaking the law, he then defends Hillary from fur ...[text shortened]... ost anyone else their job and probably do prison time.

That's what you call a partisan shill.

An entire post filled with nothing but lies.

Impressive.

Originally posted by no1marauder
An entire post filled with nothing but lies.

Impressive.

Nice retort

Originally posted by whodey
That makes no sense.

Back at you.

My issue is that Marauder admitted Obama broke the War Powers Act by not consulting Congress, but failed to demand he be held accountable for that. Hillary was also part of the mess being Secretary of State.
So it is your claim that Hillary also broke the War Powers Act?

Not only does he not seem to feel that either should face consequences for breaking the law, he then defends Hillary from further allegations regarding giving top secret information away that would cost anyone else their job and probably do prison time.
How are the two related? Clearly you are trying to claim that because he objected to something Obama did then he must equally object to something Hillary did. Clearly you want him to be a partisan shill and are disappointed that he is not.
Add to that the fact that you are lying about Hillary and probably lying about No1 defending Hillary on that count given that no such allegations were ever made (other than by anonymous internet forum liars like you)

That's what you call a partisan shill.
Yes, you clearly are. Thanks for admitting it so openly and showing us a such a good demonstration of your partisan behaviour.

Originally posted by whodey
I could care less about the legal aspects of this case other than the word "Redskins" is being censored in the business realm.

So according to the fab 9, anything they deem offensive will be censored.

So it's ok if a team comes up and they name it the St Louis Mother F/kers?

Originally posted by mchill
"I don't know what I am talking about and I don't WANT to know what I am talking about if it interferes with the propaganda value of my nonsensical statements".

Now THAT's funny! 😀😀😀
This is better than Jerry Seinfeld!

Yeah, no1 smacking whodey around is one of the more entertaining dynamics of this forum.

Originally posted by whodey
So if I want to destroy a trademark all that is needed is a number of petitions to say it is offensive?

A trademark is a government created monopoly granted because the government finds it in societal interests of some sort to grant it. As such, the government is free to put restrictions on the granting of such so long as though restrictions are rational. No one is entitled to a monopoly over a mark as a matter of right.

If you were consistent in your anti-"collectivist" philosophy, you would oppose the granting of ANY trademarks (which restrict free speech) which many libertarians and anarchists do.

Originally posted by whodey
That makes no sense.

My issue is that Marauder admitted Obama broke the War Powers Act by not consulting Congress, but failed to demand he be held accountable for that. Hillary was also part of the mess being Secretary of State.

Not only does he not seem to feel that either should face consequences for breaking the law, he then defends Hillary from fur ...[text shortened]... ost anyone else their job and probably do prison time.

That's what you call a partisan shill.

Didn't have access to my PC yesterday and posting from my phone is a bit of a chore, so simply saying this post was all lies was succinct but accurate.

I have never stated or implied that I feel this or ANY President (I am not Obama-obsessed as whodey - every President for decades has asserted and acted as if the President's war making power is far more broad than I believe is Constitutionally justified) should be able to disregard laws. The scope of the President's war making powers has been a subject of scholarly debates for a long time with reasonable minds differing. The best solution for this debate would be a definitive SCOTUS ruling. Unfortunately, conservative judges threw a number of substantial procedural roadblocks against suits by citizens and Congressmen challenging various military actions which I believe go beyond the President's Constitutional and statutory authority - generally involving "standing" and sometimes the contrived "political question" doctrine. Until and unless these decisions are reversed, there remains little that legally can be done except restrictions on funding certain military operations (which I have almost always supported). I have no idea what whodey means by holding a politician accountable, but I did not vote for Obama and will not vote for Hillary largely because they support military actions of that sort - that sounds like "holding them accountable" to me.

There is no evidence that Hillary gave top secret information away and Comey specifically stated that no prosecutor would pursue a case under the same facts against anyone, so these are two whoppers that whodey has had the actual facts explained to him many times. That he persists in these falsehoods for political propaganda purposes is contemptible but expected.

This "partisan shill" has not voted for any Democratic candidate for President, Senator or any statewide office in more than two decades.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Didn't have access to my PC yesterday and posting from my phone is a bit of a chore, so simply saying this post was all lies was succinct but accurate.

I have never stated or implied that I feel this or ANY President (I am not Obama-obsessed as whodey - every President for decades has asserted and acted as if the President's war making power is far mo ...[text shortened]... ny Democratic candidate for President, Senator or any statewide office in more than two decades.

Until and unless these decisions are reversed, there remains little that legally can be done except restrictions on funding certain military operations (which I have almost always supported).

Sorry, is it the restriction of funding or the specific military operations you generally agree with?