T1B

They didn't charge anyone for the halftime show. It was free, dipshit.

Except for that pesky little $2.4 million dollar per 30 second commercial spot thingy, you are correct.

OCmike wrote:After you're done getting worked on SuperBowl Halftime Shows, are you going to move on to the OKC bombing and the newspapers that were sold for $.25 with the names of the dead in them?

You forgot the hundreds in ad revenue, and hey why not. Someone might be "offended" by seeing their relative's name in the paper. Better sue to stop this hurtful practice.

Except for that pesky little $2.4 million dollar per 30 second commercial spot thingy, you are correct.

Thank you Mr. Helper!

I wondered how many of you monkeys would be falling all over their keyboard to be the first to point that out, as if we all didn't know that SuperBowl commercials are expesive.

So do you agree with BSmack's retarded assertion that the two are the same?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:No, they both exploited the dead for a buck.

How much money did they make off that tribute? Which political party did that message endorse?

Or you could just shove it up your ass, stupid faggot.

As usual, you have nothing to offer save backpeddaling and namecalling.

As for how much money they made, I'm certain that the profit margins for Super Bowl XXXVI were substantial. And the halftime show is an integral part of the balance sheet. If you don't belive me, ask the NFL executives who spend all year using the halftime show as a means to lure millions upon millions of non football fans to watch the Super Bowl.

And I think we've already covered that the law in question does not cover "partisan political" product, it covers any product.

RadioFan wrote:

OCmike wrote:After you're done getting worked on SuperBowl Halftime Shows, are you going to move on to the OKC bombing and the newspapers that were sold for $.25 with the names of the dead in them?

You forgot the hundreds in ad revenue, and hey why not. Someone might be "offended" by seeing their relative's name in the paper. Better sue to stop this hurtful practice.

The ACLU called. They want their anal point of view back.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:No, they both exploited the dead for a buck.

How much money did they make off that tribute? Which political party did that message endorse?

Or you could just shove it up your ass, stupid faggot.

As usual, you have nothing to offer save backpeddaling and namecalling.

From the guy who retreated to the safety of a SuperBowl Halftime bunker when he couldn't maintain his original position...

OCmike wrote:

Except for that pesky little $2.4 million dollar per 30 second commercial spot thingy, you are correct.

Thank you Mr. Helper!

I wondered how many of you monkeys would be falling all over their keyboard to be the first to point that out, as if we all didn't know that SuperBowl commercials are expesive.

I didn't fall. I was pushed.

So do you agree with BSmack's retarded assertion that the two are the same?

Not completely. I just figure I'd get my shots in while mvscal is wearing his supertard suit. :)

OCmike wrote:From the guy who retreated to the safety of a SuperBowl Halftime bunker when he couldn't maintain his original position...

My original position is the same. I'm merely expanding upon it. Soldiers should have no special status under law conferred upon them save that which is necessary for them to do their duty or, in the case of the GI Bill, to get them to sign up in the first place. That this law is being supported by the same people who fear extending the 14th Amendment to gays and lesbians will create a "privileged class" is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Mister Bushice wrote:
I didn't fall. I was pushed.

BTW, normally mvscal's insults are about as funny as BSmack saying "Chimpy" for the umpteen-millionth time, but I have to admit that I laughed at "Choke on a dick".

BSmack wrote:

Mr T wrote:BSmack,

What if I sold shirts that said.....

On the front: Your picture
On the back: :insert your name: fucked little boys and goats

Free speech?

You would be guilty of libel and slander in that case.

Apples and fucking bowling balls.

Whoa...whoa...whoa.... Dont come down on my free speech you conservative.

1st Amendment says I can do and say whatever I please.




Anti-war guy using peoples names to make a buck. Not protected.

Me using your name or likeness to make a buck. Not protected.

Anyone using someones name and/or likeness to make a buck without consent. Not protected.

What the fuck is so hard to understand?

Yes we have Free Speech, but you still go to jail when you yell fire in a crowded building or i got a bomb at an airport.

Mr T wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Mr T wrote:BSmack,

What if I sold shirts that said.....

On the front: Your picture
On the back: :insert your name: fucked little boys and goats

Free speech?

You would be guilty of libel and slander in that case.

I'm just curious how one commits "slander" with a tee-shirt.


I'll take your answer off the air. TIA.

Maybe the t-shirt has a speaker on it and plays a recording

or its just a possessed t-shirt that talks on its own but that would making the t-shirt the one slandering.

Mr T wrote:or i got a bomb at an airport.

What if you yell "i am the bomb" at an airport?

Depends on the inflection, of course, and whether or not you're wearing a turban.

OCmike wrote:The ACLU called. They want their anal point of view back.

Your keyboad called. It wants its plastic back for that "take."

Face it, your stance on this makes you a hypocrite who thinks it's perfectly fine to sell a dead person's name or image, just as long as you agree with the political message or don't happen to see one.

But if not, you're perfectly fine with cheering arguably unconstitutional laws soley created as an attempt to silence a form of political speech.

Spin it all you want, but that's what it comes down to.

OCmike wrote:He's using the names of dead people to make a buck and the lefties cheer him for it. What a bunch of classless losers.

I haven't seen any of the "lefties" in this thread offer an opinion on the morality of selling the t-shirts.....personally, I think this guy is beneath contempt......

but I think it's kind of disingenuous of you to categorize "lefties" arguing the guys right to sell it as endorsing the product or the seller......

carry on.....

Just shows how stupid and uninformed some people are in these politically confusing times, I guess.

Defending the shirt guy's Constitutional Rights to use the guys military service THAT HE PAID for, over the emotional inadequacies of others is a very "righty" concept...but don't tell these "conservatives."

mvscal wrote:Link to this alleged Constitutional right.

It's right there in the First Amendment, dumbfuck.

Freedom Of Speech...ever heard of it? He's not libelling or defaming his character, so there you go.

Now, your turn...which one of those amendments outlines certain people's right to not be offended?

Maybe Dan Boren and the State of Oklahoma can subpoena the Victory store.

I'm sure they sold a shirt to someone, somewhere without "permission" from the proper family member.

Here ya go......go nuts with the C&P you crazy kids!!!

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of greivances.

mvscal wrote: Please highlight the relevant section of the 1st Amendment that permits one to use the name of another to endorse their product without consent.

Now the fallen soldier is "endorsing" the product?

Brilliant take, CicerWagon.

Mr T wrote:Whoa...whoa...whoa.... Dont come down on my free speech you conservative.

1st Amendment says I can do and say whatever I please.

If you can show me how that T-Shirt either libels or slanders any of the 1700 fallen soldiers listed on it, please feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, feel free to make like a good FSU fan and go "wide right" of the submit button and hit the delete key on your next "take".

mvscal wrote:Nope. You do fuck little boys and goats in the same way Bush "lied" about prewar intelligence.

There is no difference. Your name is being appropriated for a commercial venture without your consent.

Now if Bush wants to sue for libel, he can feel free. But there is absolutely no way in hell those soldiers are being either libeled or slandered. But of course Bush would never sue. He knows damn well that the truth is a valid defense for libel.

So, when a newspaper quotes a person, they're committing libel?


Okay. The liberals are nuts.


The newspaper prints the name of every soldier who dies in war. This list of names becomes public knowledge. Why shouldn't dude be allowed to compile a list? He hasn't attributed ANY statements to any of the soldiers, which takes the whole "libel" issue away.


Theese right-wing-liberals who hate America are disturbing.

You must admit, it is pretty arrogant to put the names of a dead soldiers to sell an overtly liberal t-shirt, without any respect whatsoever to the real political beliefs of the deceased.

as usual, RACK Mvscal for dickslapping his personal fuckpuppet BSmack around..........

This made me laugh out loud:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:As for how much money they made, I'm certain that the profit margins for Super Bowl XXXVI were substantial. And the halftime show is an integral part of the balance sheet.

Who paid the NFL for that tribute?

Nevermind. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. As usual you offer nothing but diversions from the subject and pure bullshit.

Choke on a dick, dumbfuck.

Raydah James wrote:This made me laugh out loud

So do sock puppets. You have as much business in this thread as a narc at a Phish concert.

BSmack wrote:*melt*

and the beat rolls on........

BSmack wrote:So do sock puppets.

OK, that made me laugh.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Here ya go......go nuts with the C&P you crazy kids!!!

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of greivances.

that's pure lunacy......

88 wrote:I wonder how the guy selling the T-shirts would feel if someone started selling T-shirts that said "People Who I Wish Were Dead" on the front and listed his name (among others) on the back?

I don't know how he'd feel...but I'd feel pretty good about it. And I'd also defend that guy's right to print it.

Although, that could possibly be construed as menacing or something. Oh well, karma's a bitch.

BSmack wrote: If you can show me how that T-Shirt either libels or slanders any of the 1700 fallen soldiers listed on it, please feel free to elaborate.

Never said that it did but I did say....

Anti-war guy using peoples names to make a buck. Not protected.

Me using your name or likeness to make a buck. Not protected.

Anyone using someones name and/or likeness to make a buck without consent. Not protected.

What the fuck is so hard to understand?

Yes we have Free Speech, but you still go to jail when you yell fire in a crowded building or i got a bomb at an airport.

Mr T wrote:Anyone using someones name and/or likeness to make a buck without consent. Not protected.

Ever read a newspaper?

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Mr T wrote:Anyone using someones name and/or likeness to make a buck without consent. Not protected.

Ever read a newspaper?

Ever read the Constitution?

Yes. Still looking for a passage in the Constitution that covers this issue. You find one? Other than the First Ammendment that is.