SoAMadDeathWish

If people are people, not classes, then maybe the team should change its name to the "Washington Individuals"?

Ok, I respect your feelings and will take responsibility for my actions, so I won't call anyone a "Native American" anymore. There, now what is so difficult about that? (blowjobs and jokes aren't people and cannot take offense).

Population of 36... at least in 2011 according to Wikipedia: Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (I looked them up because I wanted to see if the Cherokees ever fought them.) 36 whole people saying they are speaking for an entire race? That's not bullshit politics? Really? It's not a numbers game. If just one Native American told me to not call Native Americans "redskins" because they find it offensive and racist, I don't know about you, but that would be enough for me. Hello, pot, my name is kettle.

Why? This is capitalism at work. Out with the old, in with the new.

That commercial was made by the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, so no, not bullshit. Did you ever maybe consider that not everyone had an upbringing and experiences that are exactly the same as yours?

Not one, except these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT8Q1VY8_Bg

Perfectly OK. And if this cancellation stands, let's have some real fun once a conservative president gets elected. I can think of oodles of trademarks that offend hardline conservatives based on (religious) bigotry, stupidity, and (sexual) depravity--stuff they definitely would not want taxpayers subsidizing. All kinds of moral issues, in fact... Ya' really want to go down this road with them? When Bush did the Patriot Act, he never imagined an Obama. Imagine what the present government powers could do if someone like Rick Santorum (or worse) ever gets elected. And that's not impossible. All it takes is one successful major terrorist attack. Michael There's a difference between discrimination and offense.

Someone who gets a racist trademark is discriminating on behalf and with the aid of the US government. So a law that allows a person to trademark any name he wants would be complicit with injustice. The purpose of laws that prohibit racist trademarks is not to protect individuals from racism by other individuals, but to protect them from racism committed by the state.

No one is preventing the owners of the Redskins from calling their team the Redskins. Absolutely no one is violating their rights in any way here. People might have a right to bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, but they don't have the right to taxpayer subsidized bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, which is what this trademark really is.

What tyranny? The US patent office just stopped doing something it can't legally do. The question is not whether it is legal to trademark the name but whether it should be legal. Darrell Does anyone here seriously question the idea that the law should not discriminate against people on the basis of race? Because there's no denying that that's what the government would be doing by protecting a racist trademark.

What tyranny? The US patent office just stopped doing something it can't legally do.

^ Go back to stormfront.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to expound a little further on the beauty of my idea: Only people that pay in at least as much as they get from the government shall be allowed to vote. Let's say that the productive members of society got fed up with paying taxes to people that were loafing around and abolished all of the welfare programs including Social Security. Then, since none of those people would be receiving anything from the government in the way of handouts, suddenly they would be able to vote. So, there would be an incentive to give moochers at least a little in order to prevent them from gaining political power. Once the moochers got the right to vote, they could vote themselves large benefits, but if they did, they would once again lose the right to vote. So, there would be a built in incentive for them to vote for only modest benefits for themselves. If they did enough work, they could potentially keep the right to vote. And, at any rate, they would know that they would be at the mercy of the productive people once they could no longer vote. Of course, there are other incentives for productive people to maintain programs like Social Security. After all, they will retire some day and may want a minimum guaranteed income in their later years. However, they would be less likely to greedily vote themselves large benefits because they would know that they wouldn't be able to vote to keep them later and would be at the mercy of the producers once they retired. The result would not be to eliminate all government aid for the poor, but to keep the amount manageable. The same would be true of pensions. Government handouts would become more like charity. A person cannot go to a charity and demand a certain benefit. It is up to the charity to determine how much to grant him. The same would be true under my voting scheme. Darrell I don't think I was being as clear as I thought. If you can't get more from the government than what you pay in, then why bother having a government at all? If this rule could actually be implemented, then participating in politics would be as stupid as buying a $10 bill for $20.

Bookmark'd.

Cool riddle. But I have a good one too. How does the gravity get out of a black hole?

Yeah... I'm sure you know more about the place I was born and raised in than I do just from doing a 5 minute google search. How silly of me not to submit to Your Omniscience.

A... Lol. I was there for that incident. What's even worse is that the administration was disrupting class, not the protestors. The protest started at the end of my geometry class around 10 pm, and that's when they told everyone to not go to their next class until further notice. They also put a big barricade around them in the middle of the hallway while the security yelled at them. Must have been really courageous of you "rebels" to actually get "yelled at" by "Security" [did they have big flashlights?] and hold your ground. Geez, we are doomed. I wouldn't storm a pre-school with this crowd. A... I wasn't one of the protestors.

No, 65 full time positions were proposed to be cut, but 80% of the teachers were laid off (at least at Morton West). Not sure how many came back though. Also, the 8300 students figure is incorrect, since the district consists of about 4 schools. None of what you posted contradicts the fact that the mayor did have something to do with. I was there at the meeting when the city council described the budget situation, and afterward, one of the council members told the group I was with about the mayor and his shenanigans.

A... Lol. I was there for that incident. What's even worse is that the administration was disrupting class, not the protestors. The protest started at the end of my geometry class around 10 pm, and that's when they told everyone to not go to their next class until further notice. They also put a big barricade around them in the middle of the hallway while the security yelled at them.

The above quote refers to events in 1933. Ellen Kinda why I posted it .... seems that this was pretty much the last significant event that ever happened around the school. A... That's because you're on the district 201 page. The page for the school itself is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Sterling_Morton_High_School_West

Okay. Where and when were 80% of the teachers laid off? J. Sterling Morton West High School, 2010.

Ma'am, with the utmost respect and allowing every possible benefit of rhetorical license, I'd say you're a damn liar. Why the hell would I lie? It happened. Deal with it.

In the high school that I went to, all of the tenured teachers stood head and shoulders above the rest and the majority of them had Phd's in their respective fields. This changed the year I graduated. The mayor and his cronies were corrupt to the core and essentially stole tens of millions of dollars from the schools. The Mayor's brother had a construction company, and the mayor ordered additions to the school buildings that the schools simply couldn't afford. The schools went deep into debt and decided to lay off something like 80% of the teachers that year. I don't think that the tenure system itself is what's causing the problem. After all, most college professors in the US are tenured and US higher education is the best in the world. I'm quite certain it's the corrupt local governments.

Nope. None of the factors are zero. The product of non zero numbers bigger than 1 cannot be 0. Ba'al Chatzaf The product of non-zero natural numbers bigger than 1 cannot be 0, but that is not true for supernatural numbers.

Supernatural numbers are awesome. The supernatural number 2^(inf)*3^(inf)*5^(inf)*7^(inf)*.... = 0. Why? Because 0 can be divided by any prime number infinitely many times.