SoAMadDeathWish
-
Posts
698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by SoAMadDeathWish
-
-
That's collectivist thinking in action, Naomi.
/sarcasm
I'll remember in future when you start being offensive to just let you know nicely, based on some generalization of my race, gender, etc that you are offending me, and I'm sure you'll sweetly submit. Oh wait, I could do that now. Because I have Cherokee heritage as well! I find the term "Native American" offensive and racist. Say it no more to any of my tribe, please. If Michael disagrees with me, well, his opinion doesn't count because it only takes one of us. Or, how about that covert reference to blowjobs you once made and that golfer hitman joke you found so hilarious. As a woman, I was utterly offended and even a little bit sexually harrassed. You're gonna knock off that kind of BS immediately then, right?
/sarcasm
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).
-
That commercial was made by the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, so no, not bullshit.
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.
Sure.
I doubt you would consider it, though.
I think you only consider the upbringing and experiences of those who follow the agenda you have bought into and want to exercise control over others about it.
Michael
Hello, pot, my name is kettle.
-
Why? This is capitalism at work. Out with the old, in with the new.
-
The commercial says America Indians call themselves many things, but the one thing they don't is redskin.
Bullshit.
That commercial was made by the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, so no, not bullshit.
I'm part Indian (Cherokee) and the people in my family always called their Indian portion redskin. The whole idea of redskin being a degrading term never appeared in my upbringing. It would be like someone wanting you to feel shame for calling someone with red hair a redhead all of a sudden. You think WTF?
Did you ever maybe consider that not everyone had an upbringing and experiences that are exactly the same as yours?
-
MARK LEVIN: The Redskins still OWN their name, logo and will sue you and WIN if you try to use it
There's a 13 minute video at that link that does not embed. Very instructive for those who do not know much about intellectual property. I, myself, was not aware how much Common Law applied.
Levin talks about the fundamental legalities involved. As I thought, this issue is harassment, a tempest in a teacup. Nothing is going to come of it in practical terms.
In fact, the same stunt was tried twenty years ago and it was overturned on appeal.
At the end, he said something I resonate with: not one of the morons mouthing off about this as a civil rights issue has been on an Indian reservation. That was his word--morons--not mine.
I agree. They don't give a crap about Indians, not really. This is just a banner for them to try to get more power.
Michael
Not one, except these guys:
-
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.
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.
-
Wouldn't a law that allows a person to trademark any name he wants to be neutral with regard to race?
Darrell
Sticks and stones will break my bones, which is why a govt is needed to protect me from the initiation of force, please explain what a racist trademark may be and how govt is needed tp protect someone from the harm it may cause, that is protect them from the use of force.
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.
-
I find this story shocking and wholly unexpected. Who knew the fascist Thought Police of America had this much power? And how soon before America has an Iranian-style Morality Police as well?
Where is freedom of speech in all of this? And property rights? Aren't the Redskins a business worth well over $500 million? I think paying that high a price gives the owners the right to name their business anything they want. And when will the real bigotry of "affirmative action" finally be stopped?
To see this issue clearly people need to realize that not only do all individuals have the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and Privacy, but also to, so to speak, Bigotry, Stupidity, and Depravity. Such behavior may be profoundly socially immoral, but your life is your own, to do with as you wish, so long as you don't attack people and property. Under freedom you're allowed to be "anti-social," and a "hater," and to "hurt people's feelings" all day long! The purpose of gov't is to protect life, liberty, property, and privacy -- not to make us morally good.
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.
-
Welcome to the "soft" tyranny, citizen!
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.
-
Welcome to the "soft" tyranny, citizen!
What tyranny? The US patent office just stopped doing something it can't legally do.
-
^ Go back to stormfront.
-
Why would anybody want to pay $10 a year of tax in order to be able to vote when the most they can get from the government is about $10 before losing the right to vote?
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.
-
Well electrons are not the same thing as the electromagnetic field that carries the current, so it's really not all that surprising. Did I get it right?
Cool riddle.
But I have a good one too.
How does the gravity get out of a black hole?
-
You're a damn liar and a fool. To the Ignore list.
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.
-
One of the more reprehensible organizations in America:
Rainbow/PUSH became involved, siding with the students.[19] By November 13, the expulsions had been retracted, and all but four students were allowed to return to class (who were allowed to return after their suspensions had ended.[19][20]
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.
-
The claim of "80% teacher layoffs" was absurd. 65 positions were proposed to be cut. If those 65 were 80% of Morton teachers, then the total teaching staff was 92 -- for an enrollment of 8,300 students (a ratio of 1 teacher for 90 students).
The mayor had nothing to do with it.
In 2010 the district was $98 million in debt and running multi-million dollar annual deficits. "Districts across the state and country are experiencing similar budget issues and are being forced to layoff teachers and cut programs... Some after-school activities, such as clubs, would be merged; the French Club, Italian Club and Latino Club could be combined into a single Modern Language Club, for example. Students also would be required to raise more money for their clubs. The district also proposes to eliminate the horticulture class and one science credit. Four coaching positions would be cut from the athletic department." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-10/news/ct-x-w-0310-berwyn-cicero-school-cuts-20100310_1_public-hearing-schools-district-s-financial-problems
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.
The mayor had nothing to do with it.
In 2010 the district was $98 million in debt and running multi-million dollar annual deficits.
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.
-
One of the more reprehensible organizations in America:
Rainbow/PUSH became involved, siding with the students.[19] By November 13, the expulsions had been retracted, and all but four students were allowed to return to class (who were allowed to return after their suspensions had ended.[19][20]
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.
-
Here is the Wiki on the school:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.S._Morton_High_School
On the evening of February 2, a 20-foot-tall (6.1 m) burning cross was found on the athletic field.[23] At a board meeting in March, a citizen identified himself as a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and informed the board that "As an organization we are watching developments ..."[24
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
-
Why the hell would I lie? It happened. Deal with it.
Okay. Where and when were 80% of the teachers laid off?
J. Sterling Morton West High School, 2010.
-
something like 80% of the teachers
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.
-
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.
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.
Jeezus Q Kryst!!!!
in 4 - Politics
Posted
If people are people, not classes, then maybe the team should change its name to the "Washington Individuals"?