RockneDrive

rah,rah, rah Oom-pa-pa

Aw, your feewins are hurt because I shot your argument down.....

Just checked and all you have to do is click on User CP and you can put my name on "ignore." Hope this helps.

http://dinamehta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/800px-maslows_hierarchy_of_needssvg.png

He's got to go through Maslow's hierarchy of needs triangle to reach that level.

One last word, I wasn't debating you. I was pointing out that you made a back-handed remark to another poster, who I'm sure didn't appreciate being piled on by you and two others. People should feel free to post what they want without being belittled. That poster is probably now reluctant to post other thoughts because of the way you and others responded. Please ignore me from now on. Isn't there an "ignore poster" function at DD? That way you wouldn't see any of my posts and we would both be content.

Just admit it. You were wrong and you know it.

This would have been a much better comment to have made directly to the poster rather than the belittling ones you made indirectly.

Reread your responses to other folks who took pot shots at the poster. Guilty as charged!!!!

Give the poster a break! He/she is entitled to his/her opinion without being belittled for it.

Libs always say this but if that's what you think needs to be done to help other people, why don't you and the millions of other "compassionate" libs send more of your own money NOW to the government? Why do you have to wait for the government to force everyone else who disagrees with you? This is the problem with libs. They are very compassionate with other people's money but are miserly with their own when it comes to giving charity. On the other hand, conservatives have been shown not only to give more than liberals to charity, but also if they see a particular need somewhere, they IMMEDIATELY reach into their own pocket to fill that need rather than wait for the government to mandate that everyone else should be taxed to fill that need because of some wacky notion of fairness. It is noble to reach into your own pocket to help the less fortunate but it is despicable and worthy of condemnation to reach into someone else's pocket to help the less fortunate. And that's the basic difference between the socialist dimocrats, liberals, 0bama - and conservatives, republicans, and those who love freedom. Direct transfer payments from earners to those who don't earn anything are immoral and under our form of government unconstitutional. Libs: Put your own money where your mouth is! Leave the rest of us alone.

Does all night sex help at all?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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/

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?

I like my version better. Ridicule and sarcasm rocks!

It's great to see a socialist defend socialism in one breath and try and convince everyone that 0bama is not a socialist in another breath. Liberals are very confused and liberalism is a mental disorder. LOL!

Now that's one mother trucker!!!

Both of you guys crack me up. I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.

If you don't watch out, they may take my "official board skunk poker" trophy and give it to you.

That's because most around here are horny sumbitches.