Jump to content

RockneDrive

Members
  • Posts

    1,281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RockneDrive

  1. Sorry, it was a graph and I saw it after I posted it but now it's not shown. Go figure.
  2. Figure 6: CEOs' pay as a multiple of the average worker's pay, 1960-2007http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_6.gifSource: Executive Excess 2008, the 15th Annual CEO Compensation Survey from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.
  3. http://www.themountvernonstatement.com/
  4. Listen to the mayor: Las Vegas Mayor Goodman rejects Obama invitation http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11996202#poll92914
  5. Update: http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/local/article/wellford_mayor_sallie_peake_defends_do_chase_policy/67557/ [url=http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/local/article/wellford_mayor_sallie_peake_defends_do_chase_policy/67557/][/url]
  6. I must have missed your post. I posted the same thing. It got deleted. Ooops.
  7. That may be technically correct. And yes the NFL is a private concern where owners agree to revenue sharing, although reluctantly sometimes I would guess. The notion of revenue sharing is something I'm sure the successful teams did not want but were probably out-voted. You can't tell me that they do it 100% willingly. The idea of revenue sharing is a socialist idea regardless of whether it applies in a governmental or nongovernmental setting. That's all I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that technically speaking the NFL is a socialist entity as would be a government - it clearly isn't. But it does seem to employ some socialistic policies - that is spreading other people's wealth to those who didn't earn it.
  8. I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion. I can disagree philsophically with the socialist aspects of the NFL and still enjoy watching the NFL without being a hypocrite. I think you present a false choice in suggesting that unless the world conforms perfectly and exactly with my own beliefs, that any interaction that I may have with the world (over which I have no control) is necessarily hypocrisy. You are painting a very narrow parameter in which to live one's life - the world isn't perfect and it will never do what I want it to do and I have to live in it and cooperate with people that I may or may not agree with philosophically. What is the point of this?
  9. Again, my opinion doesn't really matter. What is, is and that's not going to change. But just for grins, I think it would be better eventually for the NFL. If a few teams have to go belly up, so be it. Players should be paid what they are worth on the free market and should be able to negotiate their salaries any time they see fit. Owners don't want to pay? Then a player should be able to move on and go where someone else is willing to pay him what the market will bear. If I'm a sixteen year old with a body of a 25 year old and can play with the big boys, why would I waste my time getting an education or risk getting injured in college when I can go and make millions? Go for it. Who is anybody to say that individual should not be able to make his own decisions? And if he's a legal minor, if it's ok with his parents, then go for it! Revenue sharing is socialism. If you can't get enough people inside your stadium to pay the bills, you should fail and be replaced by an owner that can get it done. It's not equitable to force successful teams who work hard to be successful to give the mediocre teams some of their hard-earned money.
  10. What I think about the way the NFL does its business, whether I agree with it or not doesn't mean crap. It won't affect what they do one bit. And it's unknown and presumptive to assume to know what would happen to the NFL if it didn't do what it is now doing. I just stated my opinion as a staunch opponent of socialism who isn't a flag-bearer for the things mentioned by another poster, which contradicts his thesis.
  11. Liberals today have bastardized Classical Liberalism* such that not only do they not come close to it but they are divorced from it practically speaking. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism *http://www.classical-liberal.com/
  12. From the link in the OP: The full document will be posted online at www.themountvernonstatement.com after 3 p.m. Wednesday (today)
  13. LOL! This very post reeks of insults. Yeah right, you are not here to engage in an insult contest. You are not credible. What a joke! hahahaha
  14. Editing is what an edit button is for. I didn't know I needed your permission to add to my posts. You apparently forgot the board rules when you made a personal attack calling me a ****. That's ok. I can handle childish name-calling. Why do you stalk my posts? Are you a stalker in real life? What was your question?
  15. opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one takes one to know one neener,neener, neener
  16. It is not obvious to whom you were responding. Try using the quote button next time. I thought you were responding to another post. This post above was directed to me correct?
  17. You got busted and now you are doing the same thing you so sanctimoniously criticize others for doing - name calling. LOL!
  18. Again, I like my version better. I only say that because it is obvious that you are shadowing my posts and asking the same questions that I ask in an attempt to present my post in the way that you think is preferable to the way I posted it using ridicule and sarcasm. I am not swayed in any way to agree with your condescending opinion. But feel free to shadow my posts and re-ask my questions and make the identical points I'm making in your "preferred" manner. Your method is so superior to mine. What would I do without your omniscient tutelage?
×
×
  • Create New...