RockneDrive

nicely put...

rah,rah, rah

Oom-pa-pa

Maslow's triangle done in rainbow... paging Dr. Freud! I'm pretty sure we can tie this in with the Elton John/Jesus thread now.

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

this is the second day in a row now where i am going to simply start ignoring you,

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

Hope this helps.

i wanna be self actualized...

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

jon, he will always get in the last word. the sooner you realize that, better the chance of obtaining self actualization...............;)

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

ok... you didnt say that, nor did i direct the original post to it... i attributed it to you after your second post defending it... sorry i cant imagine how that could have happened... some of use are not here keeping score... this is the second day in a row now where i am going to simply start ignoring you, congrats... you have raised the level of debate yet again.

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.

if i had cared to make them to the poster in question... one might conclude that i was not dignifying the disdainful post with a direct response.

 

or you could just lighten the F#@% up...

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

no he didnt, but the republican party has.......and as for him, he could be smarter than einstein, but he's still fourteen... masturbation should be his forte, not the global economy..............

Geniuses never have taken the common paths in life but he may still milk the lizard occassionally, who knows?

ah, your correlation between some random early century progressive and the second world war... yeah... you deserved the grief you got for that... that was neither pertinent to the discussion at hand nor particularly believable as a thesis.

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

lets see...........promoting sarah palin???...........actually listening to or caring what a 14 year old has to say about anything other than, "how do you text with this thing"???...............why is this party so hell bent on looking dumber than the democrats???

He didn't promote Sarah Palin. And he's a very bright and articulate young man. In fact, he said in the second video that he would not support Palin's candidacy for president because she is too partisan but would support My Man Mitch.

He's an up and comer this young man!!!!

It is very clear that the original premise of this post was a confusion between the anti-competitive actions of a monopoly and the violations of individual liberties in a socialist governing body. if pointing that out is belittling... consider me guilty.

Reread your responses to other folks who took pot shots at the poster.

Guilty as charged!!!!

yep, this has gone from people being confused between socialism and a monopoly, to that... magnificent work folks.

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

Why do you feel the need to post everything you get in your right-wing chain emails in every thread regardless of its relevance to the argument?

To piss off liberals like you.

I'm not the "official board skunk poker" for no reason.

If everyone pays an extra 5-10% so everyone has the opportunity to better themselves through a higher education I have no problem with that.

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.

Typical conservative tactic....Blame the Red X.

 

Very funny.

Ha.

 

Care to give your thoughts, Rock? That article is quite long. I will read it, but not right away.

I don't have any of my own thoughts.

Can you provide a link?

Now it's gone. If you ever want a link from a pic that disappeared, just right click on the red X where the pic was but is no longer shown and go to properties where the address will be shown.

Can you provide a link?

I copied and pasted the graph relating to the thread title which is about 2/3 of the way down on this link and it actually posted in full - just the graph in living color. For some reason, it became a bad link:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Here it is again and I see it in this post at this time:

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.

Hurry, someone tell me that they see it too!!!!

Sorry, it was a graph and I saw it after I posted it but now it's not shown.

Go figure.

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.

Does all night sex help at all?

You are confusing socialism and a monopoly (or trust).

 

The NFL is engaging in a monopolistic practice, hence the "anti-trust" exemption.

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 changed my post to reflect your points...what i should have said is, if you are anti socialist altogether, you should also be against the plethora of socialist policies in sports today, and there are many. If you are an anti-socialist and support some of these socialist policies in sports, you may be a bit hypocritical.

 

And by anti team relocation policies, i mean all of the policies in the CBA that make it difficult for a team owner to leave their current city and move to another one that is more profitable.

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?