OCinBuffalo

Hey, 9 month aniversary. I'd say that calls for me to head out to the bar tonight. Actually, it calls for me to head out to a very specific bar, with a very specific, presidential/founding of the country-oriented name, and harass the F out of Wawrow, Sullivan and the rest of Buffalo News losers, Celino, Barnes, and especially the sorry assed "old guy who prints out Global Warming stuff, and brings it to the bar every night, hoping I show up so he can give me homework", and especially the dopey owner who hasn't beaten me with one of his history/geography questions for the entire time I've been in this town. Yeah. 9 month aniversary of this thread pretty much says I should merely do what I do to them once per month = open the door and pull a Hancock = "Global Warming? You're all idiots!" Happy Aniversary Baby.... ...I live rent-free in Tom's miiiiiinnnnnd! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2Dna8dffc4&feature=kp Look, I'm wasted, and this song from my 4 year-old days just popped out. It's not you, so much as you're just the post I had left over when I multiquoted....and I forgot WTF I was gonna say! Probably isn't better anyway. And why not throw this your way? Hell you got the Sharona thing. Yeah...it's time to stop posting now. Big wins today == Tonight == "Where's wawrow?" == I will probably end up expounding... on why "convention vs. configuration is a sucker's comparison, and is a weak-ass derviation of impedence mismatch, formulated by IT clowns in San Francisco who aren't even fit to do QA on my project" ...to crackheads. But, it's a catchy tune, had to get it in, right? Happy Aniversary Baby, got the Lies on my miiiinnnnd! Sing it! (Come on, it's been a good day! Sing bitches!)

Speaking of this: LAMP! Did anyone see my pro-style takedown of silly birdog in the Obamacare thread? Or, to save time: How is a 2.9% GDP contraction....something to scoff at, to "roll eyes at", because it's a "headline #"....yet....we are supposed to take the 1.17 of the 2.9, that represents decreased health care spending, as Holy Writ? Are these mutherfrackers even trying anymore? Yeah, the entire 2.9 is useless data, but, the 1.17 that is part of it? Totally Legit. Meanwhile, people that actually know WTF they are talking about, in the form of University of Chicago, have come out and said that the contraction is mostly due to the implicit/indirect taxes that Obamacare has imposed. But....don't forget...we are allowed to look at decreased GDP, in terms of not-cost accounting, when it suits us. And goddamn you for suggesting that the various pieces of cost should provide an accurate view in the aggregate. You know, cause it don't matter how proper finance/econ/accounting treatment, from the bottom up, methodology actually works. Because, you know, we are "rolling our eyes" at that aggregate. I am utterly wasted. And, I've made more sense in this single post that you'll hear from Democrats, in the aggregate(3 times! Can you tell I have a new client who has a favorite word?) today on this issue.

"No, that's what they want us to think. But we're too smart for that".

So..... We're supposed to disregard, and "roll our eyes" at the macro GDP #s, but accept as Holy Writ the Health Care spending decrease detail, AND, disregard that the latter is dependent on the former, as well? "Fox Butterfield, Is that you?" Hmmm. If I was given the task of "Take these #s and put them in the best net positive light for the Obama Administration. Just get it done, it doesn't matter how you do it."? That's exactly the article I would write. Yeah, the 3% GDP shrinkage is nothing. In fact, "roll your eyes", cause that's the "headline number". But, the decrease in health care spending that makes up 1.17 of the 3%? No. That's meaningful? :lol: WTF?! What in the Sam Hell is the author of this piece even trying to say? The 1st quarter doesn't matter? "Recent data" has been +? IF so, then "recent data" must reflect an increase in health care spending? How can it not...if it "has been positive"? Doesn't the opposite of positive mean "negative"? Well then, following this tenuous exercise in logic as best we can, "positive", "recent" data says the opposite of decreased health care spending. Or, put simply: stable, or increased health care spending. birdog, how in the F is anyone supposed to take you seriously, when you link to obvious bunk like this?

The worst is: you're in the majority. Tons of people have often said the same as you. If we put this to poll, without any media build up prior? You're probably looking at 60-65% of Americans who support the Fair Tax concept. Of course, that poll also shows the same 15% who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, and yeah once again, the same 20% of the country who labors under the delusion that they are entitled to tell the other 80% how to live. The trouble is you run into resistance from both sides of the aisle in Congress, due to a logical progression that only an unmitigated moron can't understand: 1. Congress has a lot to sell, when it has a complicated tax code. 2. Since they have something to sell, that can value in the billions depending on who you are, corporations, unions, trade associations, and everybody else that can afford a lobbyist, will line up to buy. 3. A Fair Tax takes away most of what Congress has to sell. 4. Thus, Congress will resist a Fair Tax, because they like having things to sell. Great way to raise campaign $. 5. If one wants to reduce corporate influence on politics(or government union influence, or Wall Street influence, or trial lawyer influence....because unless they are an ignorant assclown who doesn't get it, or, a hypocrite, they want ALL of these influences thrown out), then they MUST support the Fair Tax. Or, accept the now self-proven fact that they are a fascist hack. They aren't looking for better government for all. Rather, they are looking for selective, better government for them. That's not social justice. That's by-the-book fascism. 6. Forcing the Fair Tax upon the government, is the will of the vast majority of Ameicans, because it takes so much of what Congress has to sell: away. 7. Thus, if we are serious about undue influence in government, if we want to be known as a serious person, who wants better government and is tired of Big Something rigging the game, the only rational course forward is some variation of the Fair Tax. See? A 7th grader can follow this logic, and probably has already had most of these words as spelling words. The trouble? Unmitigated morons of course!

It is just a matter of time until the word "dopey" become permanently associated with Global Warming. How else can you describe a...well, we can't call it a theory anymore, can we? How else can we define this...position?...which is STILL based on 2 speculations? For those of you who can't be bothered to read the OP, Global Warming, the "settled science," has been in a status of 100% dependency on 2 speculations for 9 months to the day. The speculations: 1. Global Warming Pollution is both preventing and causing Global Warming, at the same time. 2. Global Warming is hiding at the bottome of the ocean. Nothing, NOTHING, has been delivered since that proves either of these speculations to be true. AND, if neither of these speculations prove out, then the entire Global Warming Position(specifically the notion that man is causing a catastrophic climate FAIL), falls apart. It falls apart specifically because the observations of temperature have NOT met the predictions specified by the models. It hasn't even been close. PERIOD. It's the 9 month aniversary of this thread. The baby is here , and we STILL don't have any evidence for either speculation, nor do we have any new save ass speculations that can come make the bad man stop. Birdog, Baskin, gatorturd....it's been at least 6 months for you. Where is the evidence for either speculation? Tell us: what's going to be different 9 months from now, besides more "adventurers"** getting stuck in polar ice? **(Adventurer: what the leftist media calls Global Warming Scientists, who get stuck in ice, that "isn't supposed to be there". ) I wonder if 97% of "adventurers" agree? The League of Very Ordinary Gentlemen?

Um...you may want to scroll up about 3 posts from yours above, and watch the "Man Vs. Child" video. I'd say the IRS chief got the smirk slapped off his face. And, more than a few people would classify Gowdy as literally: "One of the little guys who has no stake in the battle of left vs. right". Trey Gowdy is building credibility as fast as Hillary is losing it this week. Also, I didn't see this posted IRS Archivist: IRS didn't follow law with lost emails. Relevant quotes: Last time I checked: "not following the law" is cause for the IRS to take whatever shovel it wants to a taxpayer. Thus, it's not even close to being inflammatory to ask: which shovel shall we take the IRS? I would argue that it's time to haul out the Fair Tax concept. The best punishment for the IRS is making them irrelevant with the Fair Tax. This is the umteenth time the IRS has proven that it has too much power and abuses it routinely, and the excuse is always the complicated tax code. Thus, the answer is simple: Remove the complicated tax code.

Do I sound like a sucker, even a tiny bit, to you? Let me reciprocate: How about you bet me on whether Snyder sues the hell out of everyone? Let's understand this bet: You want me to bet on a government agency, having made a headline grabbing decision, purposely attracting attention to itself(and its budget), to run a straight up appeals process, in the light of media scrutiny, and find itself to be wrong...in the midst of the ongoing IRS, Benghazi, VA and Obamacare messes? Are. You. High? No. Sucker's bet, and the appeal will be irrelevant, anyway. I will wait for the lawsuit, which is probably headed to the SCOTUS, years from now. Like I said, I can't wait for your argument in front of the court. You are literally saying that Dan Snyder's business isn't entitled to equal protection, solely because you don't like its logos, which you say are offensive, and base that assertion on...because you say so, while being unable to prove the logo's intent to disparage? Good luck! Somebody at USPTO thought it was a good idea to screw with Dan Snyder publicly, for reasons passing all understanding. Snyder: An owner who has repeatedly made bad decision after bad decision...based almost entirely on his ego? Two words: Adam Archuleta Not smart. Everything we know about Snyder says he sues the hell out of everyone involved, personally as well. Perhaps somebody gets to him, and explains that the PR hit, etc., or, you know, decency, as in: changing the name is the decent thing. However, I can see Snyder saying "We've already taken the hit, screw you the name is great, get the lawyers, I wanna kick ass!" in all cases, this isn't going away any time soon, so your bet is pointless. Even if, by some miracle, the USPTO finds itself to be wrong, something else will happen. Is it that hard to see Snyder licking his chops tonight? He gets his chance to kick many asses, including yours, publicly, in court. There's a great chance he wins. I don't see how he resists it. Well, since selling of persons is illegal, sorry, but we can't abide that. That's the thing: you can try and be snarky, but in the end, we are a nation of laws. You don't like laws, make new ones. You can't make new ones? Tough schit. It's your job to convince enough people to get those laws passed. If you can't do that, you don't get to run your agenda through some government agency. Or, avail yourself of our legal system, which exists purposely to defend the rights of the minority from the majority. Anything else is tyranny.

Hold up: is everyone that supports traditional marriage, on religious grounds or otherwise, suddenly a homophobe?

The latter. A trademark has been issued. Due process alone requires....process. You can't just wake up one day, and decide something is offensive, which is what the USPTO did. Did they even have a hearing? There's an appeals process. What is being appealed? A decision made by whom, and what was that process? This is yet another example of what happens when a government becomes lawless.

I specifically asked "show me where in THAT LAW" meaning the law you referenced in your wiki link above, that refers to the establishment of the USPTO. Now, you have a different law, the Lanham Act? Well, at least we've moved on from "government can regulate commerce"...to recognition that it actually requires a law from Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and signed by the Executive, which is progress, but.... ....which has quite literally NOTHING to do with this. As, it's intent is to protect the rights of "persons" living or dead from being included into something they didn't sign up for. Like me, digging up Ralph Wilson, taking a picture of him, and creating "Dead Ralph Craft Beer" and slapping his picture on it, and applying for a trademark. Persons absolutely means "private citizen", like Bob Smith. Persons does not mean "large group of people", like a bunch of pukes, who are so weak that they require constant external validation of their character, because it's not strong enough to self-validate, hence they move from thing to thing, calling it offensive, and then self-congratulating for being offended by thing du jour. Moroever, where is the contempt or disrepute? Naming an NFL team Redskins, is the opposite of contempt. You don't name your team "The Cheektowaga Douchebags", unless you want to make fun of the town. The Redskins aren't interested in disparaging Washington DC, nor are they interested in disparaging Native Americans. In fact, every single bit of behavior shows the polar opposite: their team name recognizes the power of the name, just like all of teams that were named around the same time: the Bears, Lions, Giants, etc. Thus, application of this law in this instance makes 0 sense. And if you can't PROVE intent to disparage Washington DC, or Native Americans? This is over. Again, I get why Redskins is a bad name. Again, the first time I said so was in 2nd grade. But, we can't just run around subverting the Constitution, or bastardizing laws, because we can't get our way.

Speaking of subdued....you are rather subdued in this thread as well. I sort of feel compelled to be. However, this whole "I don't even need to argue, because my superior morality does it all!" is....grating.

Words? Ok. Apparently you are confusing the word "can't" with "won't" or "don't". You can't. That's clear. 3 posts of 0 substance from you. Let's try for 4! Buddy, I hate to break it to you: but when any government agency, especially a government agency, moves against a private business, way outside it's purview, like this: it better have it's legaleze 100% perfect, because the courts will always lean towards the business. Not only is the USPTO way out of bounds here, it has specifically stated that this move is predicated 100% on it being "offensive"...and no other reason. Christ, at leas if they could prove some infringement, or using the likeness of Indians without their consent..something. But, they didn't. They said "offensive and ONLY offensive" = Curb Stomp in court. The USPTO vacates patents/TMs for things like "stealing somebody else's work", or, "ultimately based on unicorn farts". It's entire claim is based on expression it deems to be offensive. That IS limiting free speech, by friggin definition. Period. Again this is not about what is right or wrong. Of course Redskins is a bad thing to name a team. I knew that when I was in 2nd grade, and said so, repeatedly. However, we don't run our country based on what you think is right and wrong(thank God). We don't run it on what I think is rigth or wrong(thank God, because that's too much work for me) We run it based on what is equitable. Vacating these TMs is not equitable, and thus, will get blown out in a court.

Show me where in that law it says they can vacate a patent because it is "offensive". Show me where in that law the standards for vacating a patent for any reason are clearly specified. Come on man. You screwed the pooch with the "government" as "Congress" thing...relative to the Commerce Clause. Own it. Move on. Show me any legal precedents(might want to study up on Porn, Larry Flynt, Hustler and the Supreme Court. The 80s. The moral majority. Big hair, and the fact that both the Moral Majority and Hustler models both had big hair! Well, if you want a laugh. ) that supesede the gallons of legal precedents that defend things I consider to be "wrong", "disgusting", etc. But, what I consider wrong is no standard. Moreover, what you consider offensive, and wrong....doesn't matter! I know, it's difficult to find out that your "likes", actually don't count, when it comes to Free Speech. You're used to them counting. Most people are. Your education is your responsibility. I'm merely trying to help you out. Running around here linking to wiki is not getting it done.

Yeah, because destruction of intellectual property is exactly the same thing as protecting Free Speech. Are you going to be heading up the arguments for the USPTO in the Supreme Court case that is almost sure to be coming? If so, please tell me when it is. I'll take time off, fly in, hang out with some of my cousins, and see you get curb stomped in court. Yeah, not a single one of which you've been able to refute.

Hate to break it to you: it doesn't matter what you think. OMG! Call gatorman! All that matters is: the logos TMs are "expression". Free expression is guaranteed. Believe me, if people really want to get into this, I will start posting every disgusting thing that has ever been trademarked. Then we shall see what is "offensive". That's why: a value judgement such as "Redskins is a bad thing to say", is not a legal argument, hell, it's not even a very good logical argument. That's why: if Snyder calls in the lawyers, it will be a blowout in court. I don't know if he will though. My understanding is that these are older logos. He might actually exercise some sound judgement for the first time in his life, and just phase them out. But, they are his property, and he is Dan Snyder...so.... (I can't believe I'm having to defend Snyder. I laugh at this tool every single year. But, he has rights, and even as much as I don't like him, we can't let them be infringed)

Well you better get some schooling someplace. I can't believe this is even a question. It's literally ridiculous in terms of law. This goes to the SCOTUS, the USPTO loses in a 9-0 blowout. Period. It's a waste of time really. None of you arguing for USPTO's ability to vacate these trademarks....would get past traffic court with this argument. No government agency has the right to limit a Constitution freedom, based on anything, never mind a minority of a minority calling something offensive. That can only be done by law. Law, and SCOTUS upholding said law as Constitutional. "We all know what Free Speech means" apparently is no longer a viable assumption. Yeah Public Education! But, this is WHY we need a SCOTUS....to save us from a Tyranny of the Ignorant. See, again I have to correct you. Again, we start our 11th grade history class. Trade and commerce are regulated by.....CONGRESS. Not "government". It's called the Commerce Clause. It's in the Constitution. There will be homework, and a quiz on this, I guarantee you. ; IF Congress passes a law, that vacates the patents of the Redskins. So be it. The USPTO has no power to suddenly make laws on its own.

Then you don't understand the concept of free expression at all. There is no jump. Free Speech means Free Speech. Free speech doesn't mean: 1. Free Speech When Convenient, because it doesn't make me make hard choices, or have to tolerate something I find disgusting. 2. Free Speech When I Agree, because it fits my world view. 3. Free Speech When I Am Offended, because my sensibilities trump "lesser people"'s rights. No. Free Speech means all speech, free, for better or worse(unless it causes imminent danger, such as yelling "Fire" in a theater).

No there isn't. And, of course the answer, for me, is: it's wrong. You know what? It's exactly as wrong as taking a Crucifix, dropping it in a glass of urine, taking a picture, calling that art, and taking Federal funds for that activity. That's because my values say it's wrong to screw with people for no reason(although it can be funny). And, my mom taught me to be polite, and if I say something I don't realize is offensive to someone, to apologize, and not do it again. But, those are my values. I don't claim the right to project them onto other people. Nor do I, immorally, claim that my values represent morals, or that I am the arbiter of morality. (Historically, we usually end up fighting wars, hot or cold, against these types of people) There is no "right to not being offended" in this country. There is a "right to free expression". It is extremely serious, any time someone deems themselves the master of what is acceptable expression, and decides for the rest of us that it can't be seen or heard, for any reason, including it being offensive. It's something that all of us have a duty to tenaciously fight against. Especially when we know the expression is "wrong".

Ahhh...another student. Well, you may sit over there. Now, let's open our 11th grade social studies books, and turn to Chapter 2: The Bill of Rights. Later on, we're going to have time for you to discuss your term paper subjects. I suggest: In Defense of Porn: The Role of the ACLU in the 80s. Or, Unpopular Speech, and Why It Is Our Duty to Defend It.

Well, basic civics class can be daunting for the uneducated. But don't worry, I'm very good at teaching things like "how this country actually works", and "what is legal, vs. what pleases you today". I do it all the time.

The government's first job, and every government employee's first job, is to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees free speech. Therefore, by limiting free speech in this way, the USPTO is doing the exact opposite of its job. A Federal government agency is NOT to decide what speech is acceptable. If there is a party in another state that has been aggrieved by Redskins speech, then we have a vehicle for that: Federal lawsuit. And, when the Redskind inevitably appeal, and if that doesn't work, sue, to have their TMs restored, that will be their argument. The USPTO will get blown out of the water in court, as they should. They have to know that. However, this entire exercise does cost Snyder $, and bad PR. I can see the angle...I detest it, but, I can see it. It is inexcusable for any government entity to be involved in limiting free speech. They are supposed to be the guarantors of it.

Really. Well, then by that standard: TBD, a clearly offended party, should be able to get the FCC to kick Mike Schopp and Chris Parker off the air. That's what's going on here: a government agency is being manipulated to do the will of some, based on nothing more than a value judgement, in direct contradiction of Free Speech.

No. I don't want to reinforce her behavior positively or negatively, because either will only result in more. This level is fine. Besides, it's usually funny.

Then I shall not. Not because I don't want to see gatorman. I don't mind hanging out with any Bills fan. No. Because my cleaner already hates me. Or, better stated, my cleaner loves finding new ways to bust my balls and/or yell at me.