What do you watch everyday that is socialism at its finest?

[jon33dn 0]

Again, the NFL is selling a product. The intent of these programs is to keep 2-3 teams from being dominant over a long period of time because that wouldn't be interesting to their CUSTOMERS (fans). This is in no way comparable to societal socialization.

 

you nailed it.

[scintrigue 0]

you nailed it.

 

No, Not really at all. Yes they are selling a product in order to be more successful they have taken socialist policies to do so. There are many car companies owned by their respective governments and they sell cars to customers. What does selling a product have to do with anything?

[RockneDrive 0]

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?

[PJacksonsDred15 110]

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?

 

Of course you can disagree with NFL policies and still enjoy the game, I never said you couldnt. Just know that a lot of the policies that have made sports the way they are today can be attributed to socialistic policies, for the good or bad...My point is, if you support the socialistic policies of the NFL, and think that they do good, yet disagree with any and all socialistic policies of the government that may or may not do good, you may be hypocritical in your anti socialistic beliefs.

 

And my original post was only trying to explain scintrigue's initial post, and was not singling out anyone's beliefs directly...I was only speaking in hypothetical terms...

Edited February 17, 2010 by PJackson'sDred15

[jon33dn 0]

The NFL policies are not socialistic. they are agreed upon by the owners in order to provide a good product.

They are not agreeing to revenue sharing for a cosmic sense of fairness, which dictates that Kansas City deserves as much quality football as NYC. They argee to revenue sharing so that they can maximize revenue for all 16 home games a week, rather than just they 4 or 5 games in major markets.

This is really not an apt comparison.

[Irish4life 0]

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.

 

My thoughts exactly

[jon33dn 0]

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.

 

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

 

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

[Irish4life 0]

Watching the NFL even tho I don't agree with their policies is in no way hypocritical. Here's a simple analogy... I wear these uncomfortable work boots everyday,I have searched for a more comfortable pair but haven't found any, yet I still wear them. I may complain a little but I still wear them. And when I do find some that are better,I will buy em. So with that said, I will watch the NFL and if another brand comes along that I like better.. I will watch it. Ok maybe that's a bad example but its the best I could do while I'm at break. Lol

[RockneDrive 0]

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.

Edited February 17, 2010 by RockneDrive
spelling and improvement upon my thoughts

[domeanddomer 0]

No, Not really at all. Yes they are selling a product in order to be more successful they have taken socialist policies to do so. There are many car companies owned by their respective governments and they sell cars to customers. What does selling a product have to do with anything?

 

Because the US Government is NOT selling a product and we are NOT consumers. Having read a bunch of your stuff I can tell you are not an idiot so I won't go into explaining the difference between a PRIVATE business and a PUBLICLY funded government that mandates participation.

 

You normally carry on a shockingly good debate (liberals and socialists typically do not) but this thread is ridiculous. We might as well be debating the effects of fish oil on semiconductors.

[PJacksonsDred15 110]

Because the US Government is NOT selling a product and we are NOT consumers. Having read a bunch of your stuff I can tell you are not an idiot so I won't go into explaining the difference between a PRIVATE business and a PUBLICLY funded government that mandates participation.

 

You normally carry on a shockingly good debate (liberals and socialists typically do not) but this thread is ridiculous. We might as well be debating the effects of fish oil on semiconductors.

 

I dont get the confusion about this...so private businesses can use socialist philosophies to "benefit the greater good" but governments cannot? If you denounce the philosophy and agenda of socialism, (the forced taking from those who have in order to give to those who dont have) then that feeling should apply to both private business and governments...By saying a socialist agenda and policy is ok in one area but not ok in another is somewhat hypocritical.

Edited February 18, 2010 by PJackson'sDred15

[scintrigue 0]

Because the US Government is NOT selling a product and we are NOT consumers. Having read a bunch of your stuff I can tell you are not an idiot so I won't go into explaining the difference between a PRIVATE business and a PUBLICLY funded government that mandates participation.

 

You normally carry on a shockingly good debate (liberals and socialists typically do not) but this thread is ridiculous. We might as well be debating the effects of fish oil on semiconductors.

 

Thank you for the compliments. The issue is not Public or Private it is socialism which does not have to be neither. It is the principles applied by socialism and the NFL using them. Socialism is a economic philosophy not a being or a type of government. Du Bois tried to preach a socialistic aspect to the African American neighborhoods in which they would work together to create a better standard of living amongst themselves. It probably would have worked, but thats not the point, the point is that it can be used in many area and is being used.

[domeanddomer 0]

I dont get the confusion about this...so private businesses can use socialist philosophies to "benefit the greater good" but governments cannot? If you denounce the philosophy and agenda of socialism' date=' (the forced taking from those who have in order to give to those who dont have) then that feeling should apply to both private business and governments...By saying a socialist agenda and policy is ok in one area but not ok in another is somewhat hypocritical.[/quote']

 

 

First of all, I'd like to slightly adjust your definition of socialism to "the forced taking of EARNED funds by individuals to give to those who have NOT earned funds." I scratch my head even trying to figure out why that is a good idea to some...but I digress.

 

The issue here is not just about a philosophy. Socialism is bad for a society because it creates an unbreakable mentality that one doesn't need to work nor contribute to society to be rewarded with necessities or luxuries. That is a drain to the group as a whole. Coincidentally it suppresses production and drive from the top half of the group because they find no need to work 70 hour weeks if they aren't able to bear the fruits of it. This doesn't translate to the NFL at all. First of all, revenue sharing effects overall production of the group in no way because the revenue stream is driven by product demand and not on the earner's themselves. Salary caps affect the earner's (boo hoo they'll only make $10 million a year) but in no way reward people that do little to nothing and only drain from the group. Salary caps are NOT mandatory either. That player is free to play in the arena league or the CFL etc. In a socialist society, participation is mandatory by all with no other options.

 

The next big difference is the ROLE of the governing body. The NFL's role is to improve the overall quality of the product they deliver thus increasing demand for that product. This turns the business engine and in that arena a socialistic approach might be effective. The US Government's role is to protect our individual rights. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that everyone shall be supported if they refuse to work and only produce children. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that the individual is due monetary gain from his neighbor nor by his government.

 

I understand that the whole point of this thread is to try and get capitalists to admit that socialism has it's place in certain arenas, I just fail to understand how the NFL argument for socialism translates into society...which is the real liberal agenda here.

[scintrigue 0]

First of all, I'd like to slightly adjust your definition of socialism to "the forced taking of EARNED funds by individuals to give to those who have NOT earned funds." I scratch my head even trying to figure out why that is a good idea to some...but I digress.

 

The issue here is not just about a philosophy. Socialism is bad for a society because it creates an unbreakable mentality that one doesn't need to work nor contribute to society to be rewarded with necessities or luxuries. That is a drain to the group as a whole. Coincidentally it suppresses production and drive from the top half of the group because they find no need to work 70 hour weeks if they aren't able to bear the fruits of it. This doesn't translate to the NFL at all. First of all, revenue sharing effects overall production of the group in no way because the revenue stream is driven by product demand and not on the earner's themselves. Salary caps affect the earner's (boo hoo they'll only make $10 million a year) but in no way reward people that do little to nothing and only drain from the group. Salary caps are NOT mandatory either. That player is free to play in the arena league or the CFL etc.

The next big difference is the ROLE of the governing body. The NFL's role is to improve the overall quality of the product they deliver thus increasing demand In a socialist society, participation is mandatory by all with no other options. for that product. This turns the business engine and in that arena a socialistic approach might be effective. The US Government's role is to protect our individual rights. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that everyone shall be supported if they refuse to work and only produce children. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that the individual is due monetary gain from his neighbor nor by his government.

 

I understand that the whole point of this thread is to try and get capitalists to admit that socialism has it's place in certain arenas, I just fail to understand how the NFL argument for socialism translates into society...which is the real liberal agenda here.

 

1. Not true. The way it is setup is that a team for example the St. Louis rams will get more money going on the road and playing the Dallas Cowboys then they would at home. Because it is a 60/40 rule. The visiting team gets 40% of the revenue that the home team generated. NCAA football works similar the whole conference gets a paycheck for 1 team playing in a BCS game. Notre Dame being independent has to pay all teams 100k participating in a BCS bowl.

 

2. An example where participation is mandatory? Sure if you want to run a business in Hawaii you have to give employees free health care. But you also have to follow a number of codes/regulations, minimum wage laws, tax laws, ect. ect. What is the differance? How is one more mandatory than the other?

 

3. I bet there are a number of things that you benefit from on a daily basis that may considered "socialism". In addition, I know that seniors like rock and veterens benefit greatly from "socialized" health care.

 

Now rock does not have to get Medicare he can go with a private plan. He has a "choice".

Edited February 18, 2010 by scintrigue

[domeanddomer 0]

1. Not true. The way it is setup is that a team for example the St. Louis rams will get more money going on the road and playing the Dallas Cowboys then they would at home. Because it is a 60/40 rule. The visiting team gets 40% of the revenue that the home team generated. NCAA football works similar the whole conference gets a paycheck for 1 team playing in a BCS game. Notre Dame being independent has to pay all teams 100k participating in a BCS bowl.

 

2. An example where participation is mandatory? Sure if you want to run a business in Hawaii you have to give employees free health care. But you also have to follow a number of codes/regulations, minimum wage laws, tax laws, ect. ect. What is the differance? How is one more mandatory than the other?

 

3. I bet there are a number of things that you benefit from on a daily basis that may considered "socialism". In addition, I know that seniors like rock and veterens benefit greatly from "socialized" health care.

 

Now rock does not have to get Medicare he can go with a private plan. He has a "choice".

 

We're not communicating effectively here.

 

1) The earners I was referring to are the players, not the teams.

 

2) I don't have a clue how this is relevant to the conversation at all. I wasn't asking for an example of participation being mandatory, I was pointing out that government mandated participation is against everything this country is about....let alone the fact that it is economically unsustainable.

 

3) Using veterans health care is not exactly a glowing example of the success of socialism seeing as how the entity that provides it is trillions in debt and on an unsustainable financial course. I would benefit if the government gave me a Maserati, but it doesn't mean it's a financial prudent thing for them to do. Also, veteran's health care can be looked at more as a benefit from working for the government. If my company agrees to pay for my health care after I retire, I'd hardly call that a socialist practice. I'd call that an earned benefit with emphasis on the word "earned". Try again.

 

 

Out of curiosity, your avid defense of socialism is of particular interest to me. Are you in the camp of people that want the free hand out? Or are you an earner that just wants to give away half of his money to those who make poor choices and refuse to work?

[scintrigue 0]

We're not communicating effectively here.

 

1) The earners I was referring to are the players, not the teams.

 

2) I don't have a clue how this is relevant to the conversation at all. I wasn't asking for an example of participation being mandatory, I was pointing out that government mandated participation is against everything this country is about....let alone the fact that it is economically unsustainable.

 

3) Using veterans health care is not exactly a glowing example of the success of socialism seeing as how the entity that provides it is trillions in debt and on an unsustainable financial course. I would benefit if the government gave me a Maserati, but it doesn't mean it's a financial prudent thing for them to do. Also, veteran's health care can be looked at more as a benefit from working for the government. If my company agrees to pay for my health care after I retire, I'd hardly call that a socialist practice. I'd call that an earned benefit with emphasis on the word "earned". Try again.

 

 

Out of curiosity, your avid defense of socialism is of particular interest to me. Are you in the camp of people that want the free hand out? Or are you an earner that just wants to give away half of his money to those who make poor choices and refuse to work?

 

1. ) Okay but many companies for example nationalized car companies hire workers that deem qualified. I am not sure where I get your point? Your thinking of communism where one might be plucked out of school and told they are going to build widgets and another is picked to be a doctor. Thats not socialism.

 

In some cases yes, I do not think I should have to pay 150 thousand dollars in student loan debt because my parents weren't as rich as the next guy. And I only use student loans strictly for tuition nothing else, I run a business and goto school. 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. For health care as well, as long as we tax fast food and the other poison that is making people sick and fat. So if you wanna eat that sh!t you pay for the health care.

 

Reagan was the first to tax cigarettes to high levels there is virtually no difference in the health risks of Mcdonalds or Newports. Actually Mickey D's is prolly worse. The french be smokin and drinkin and livin just fine.

Edited February 19, 2010 by scintrigue
fixed quote

[RockneDrive 0]

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.

Edited February 19, 2010 by RockneDrive

[Irishman Part Deaux 0]

2. Liberalism is mis-catagorized a lot. Please feel free to look it up in the dictronary and then tell me it is a mental disorder. If so our founding fathers were nut jobs.

 

Your right, Liberalism was hijacked by the progressive movement. The progressive movement started roughly around the time of Woodrow Wilson.

 

Margaret Sanger was a progressive in the early 1900's. She founded Planned Parenthood. She was so progressive, her line of thinking led to a guy named Adolph taking over a couple of countries Circa 1939.

 

The NFL is not socialist because the trickle down effect goes to players and owners

[scintrigue 0]

Margaret Sanger was a progressive in the early 1900's. She founded Planned Parenthood. She was so progressive, her line of thinking led to a guy named Adolph taking over a couple of countries Circa 1939.

 

The NFL is not socialist because the trickle down effect goes to players and owners

 

Wow. Now WW2 is blamed on planned parenthood. Nice

[jon33dn 0]

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