StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) The other side of that is true as well. The players wouldn't have a damned thing unless the owners put up the capital to fund the NFL, and its teams, in the first place. And IIRC they are already getting a much larger share of the revenues than pretty much any other business model on the planet, versus any other "employee" group. They're a unique employee group. edit: employee-owned syndicates and co-ops might have higher profit-sharing models, not sure.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:00 AM) I'm as pro-player as you are here (is that a brand?) but let's also remember one other detail. After Upshaw and Tagliabue, both sides made decisions to ready themselves for a confrontation, and set themselves up in a way that guaranteed one. The Owners negotiated an agreement in 2006 that allowed them a chance to prepare to break the union, a-la what happened in the NHL and NBA. They brought in the guy who ran the owners side in the NHL lost season. They negotiated (illegal) TV contracts to try to cover their own tails while they strove to break the Union. The Players responded by bringing in DeMaurice Smith, a labor dispute litigator. Both sides set themselves up for a lockout. As I said I side with the players more than the owners, but let's not pretend that the players didn't take steps in that direction too. Oh no doubt, I just bristle at the idea that the owners are entitled to all of the revenue and the players should be happy with whatever the owners decide to charitably pay them out of the good of their hearts.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:00 AM) Any company isn't a billion dollar entity without it's employees. The problem is there are always more employees out there. Not with something like the NFL there isn't. The quality would suffer drastically.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) I dunno, I think that telling your voters that the President is a Socialist Muslim Fascist who is coming for your Medicare and will take it back with him to Muslims in Kenya might be a decent turnout message. But those people already believe that. You don't need to continue demonstrating to the rest of your country how dumb your base is by continuing the birther conversation. Those people are already convinced to vote against Obama.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) I still don't understand why they didn't provide a copy earlier, like a year ago earlier. I get that the WH didn't want to legitimize the issue, but after it became apparent that their refusal to come up with the certificate was leading to a decent amount of people (not just Republicans) questioning whether the speculation was true they should have produced it. As usual, the Dems are completely lousy at the PR game and have lost this battle. Trump gets to boast (wrongly of course) that he was the only one to force the WH to act and gained more support because of it. Obama meanwhile, gained nothing. Strongly disagree. The overwhelming majority of people who buy into this are people who will never vote for Obama anyway. If the Republicans are going to spend their nomination season arguing amongst themselves over exactly how stupid you have to be to buy into this birther crap, then it means they're not actually mounting a challenge to Obama on the issues people who could be swayed from voting for him actually care about. Birthermania isn't going to increase Republican turnout or decrease Democrat turnout.

Exactly. Apropos article: The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science Presenting logical, rational, well-supported arguments against someone who strongly believes in something is more likely to galvanize their beliefs than to change them. The brain sure is an interesting thing.

tl;dr version: I don't watch the NFL because Jerry Jones is such a cool guy who built an awesome stadium, I watch to see the NFL players. They generate the revenue.

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 03:34 AM) The players don't deserve anything, they are EMPLOYEES and wouldn't even be making s*** if it weren't for the billionaires that own the teams they are employed too.. Unless it was total BS, the reported offer from the owners sounded more than fair QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 07:27 AM) I didn't realize all the owners made their billions from their NFL franchises. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 07:42 AM) Yeah, he has got you there. QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 07:19 AM) The billionaire owners wouldn't be billionaires if they didn't have elite athletes playing for them either. Lost may have phrased it wrong, but the point stands: NFL teams wouldn't generate any revenue without the players. Why shouldn't they be entitled to a large share of the profits since they're the ones putting their bodies and health on the line and actually bringing the fans in? The players were happy to play under the old agreement, but the owners wanted to end that agreement and hold on to an extra couple billion dollars. Anything offered by the owners that was short of the previous agreement meant that the players would be getting less of a share than they did before. Demanding an extra 2 billion and then coming back and saying "oh, ok, we'll only take an extra billion off the top!" isn't a good deal for the players. The owners refuse to justify crying poor, so the players rightfully resisted giving up a share of the profits.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:21 AM) Yeah, at that point in the game I thought we might lose the game. Then Rose scored 6 or 7 straight, we went on a 9-0 run, and that was all she wrote. That was pretty awesome. I had the game on in the garage and the announcers were both fretting over Rose coming out of the game with foul trouble. Pacers went on a run, Rose came back in and ended the game right there.

Remember that terrible op-ed about how things were just peachy in Misrata? http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/27...rss_igoogle_cnn

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 01:22 PM) Jeff Tweedy talks a bit about Wilco's upcoming album. Hopefully it's significantly less boring than the last two. Was it bmags that described Nels Cline as Kenny G on guitar? That was spot-on.

QUOTE (NIUSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:40 AM) I found out today that I will be going to Omaha in June for 3 weeks to work for my company, Nike, at the College World Series!!! How sweet is that! The new stadium they just built for that is ridiculous. QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:48 AM) I'm not sure I'd ever be excited about going to Omaha, no matter the occasion. It's not a bad little city, really.

You correctly fear a right-wing Republican getting into office and giving us Bush Redux. Why are only Republicans capable of enacting policies firmly away from the center? Why are the Democrats only capable of weak compromises?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:12 PM) On both of the Presidents biggest bills, the PPACA and the Stimulus...he got 60 59 and 62 votes. You can tell me he made a tactical mistake in doing things like letting the Senate Budget committee debate rather than ignoring it, but that's a tactical difference/mistake, and you guys have been saying that your reason for voting against the President is philosophical. I believe I've cited ineptitude many times. How long was real, actual Universal Health Care in the discussion? How hard did he push for a massive stimulus and against tax cuts while having Democrat supermajorities? How hard did he push before coming to a compromise? He didn't, at all. It's been the same story on issue after issue that I ostensibly agree with him on. Then you get to him being Bush Term 3 on plenty of the foreign/military/interrogation/detainees/unchecked-executive stuff, and that's reason enough for me not to vote for him.

That doesn't really address the Democrats having supermajorities in both chambers and the White House and coming to the table with a heavy compromise (from a progressive perspective) and then further compromising from there.

It was the best policy they could get through because of Blue Dogs ie other Democrats. Do I need to quote Malcolm X again?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:06 PM) Like the bill they passed containing $500 billion in medicare cuts. That was entirely to keep power. You're not helping your cause.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:16 PM) That Weber summit is f***ing unreal Yes, yes it is.

Democrats care more about keeping power than actually exercising it to pass their agenda.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) So, any change from Obama's policies wouldn't be viewed for 5-10 years? What happened in '37 when FDR finally acquiesced to Republican moaning about budget deficits instead of continuing to push for spending?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) So, any change from Obama's policies wouldn't be viewed for 5-10 years? I will credit any positive changes to the continuation of the Bush tax cuts and the expansion of the estate tax cut. Oh, and also removing the grey wolves from the endangered species list. Oh, and also their failure to pass any jobs-killing and economy-crippling climate regulations.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:50 PM) As for your graph, What important event happened in 1941...... Oh yeah! The US economy finally began to recover thanks to a myriad of reasons. If you want to credit the war, then that's another knock against Obama's way-too-small-and-full-of-tax-cuts stimulus.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) It's actually interesting that from his graph, the moderately progressive policies of the 1930's did nothing to level the income distribution, the only thing that did was the war. Signal can lag source, you know this Balta.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) I'll grant them that one. Politifact has a more up to date version. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pr...promise-broken/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pr...ngs/compromise/ He's also 5/25 in "Top 25 Promises," and I'd say that No. 175 is broken. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pr...s-top-promises/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) Unemployment went to 25%. short term pain vs. long term gain. Or, alternatively, the Democrats actually bother with some progressive policies and people stop making excuses for them and we can just get the nice results.