Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,286,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 225 of 595
  1. #151
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Something I think is important to consider is how people who hate western culture want as much immigration as possible. Why? Could be because they think that will result in an overturning of western culture. Are they right? Who knows? But they think it, and acknowledging that they might have a point is better than playing Ostrich.
    You should check out the pages on the UN's website where they talk about intentionally increasing immigration and refugee acceptance in Europe to compensate for what they say is slower birthrates.
  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If I read it right, you're saying that immigration is great because flooding the cheapest and least skilled labor market sort of drives everybody else up ladder, and also drives prices down. I feel like I've heard this argument before, but it usually starts with "My great-grandfather came to Ellis Island in 1924....and that worked out great"

    When the US economy forced people to either get their act together or die, then by natural selection, the only people who survived had their act together.

    Then welfare and redistribution became a thing, so people aren't forced to get their act together. I believe you also hinted at this in your analysis wuf. So I believe our conclusion here is that immigration is obsolete.
    Migration of labor (and capital) certainly isn't obsolete, though citizenship for non-natives may be something else.

    And yeah, welfare is very bad combined with immigration.

    If I read it right, you're saying that immigration is great because flooding the cheapest and least skilled labor market sort of drives everybody else up ladder, and also drives prices down.
    By creating more stuff of what people want with less input. That's how any economic improvement happens.
  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    You should check out the pages on the UN's website where they talk about intentionally increasing immigration and refugee acceptance in Europe to compensate for what they say is slower birthrates.
    I tend to think that opinion derives from the economic situation they most pay attention to. Declining birthrates are an utter disaster for the welfare systems these countries created.

    I don't think that many people in power want to destroy the West. Some fanatic revolutionaries do.
  4. #154
  5. #155
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
    To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
    To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
    To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

    ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 01-22-2018 at 11:52 PM.
  6. #156
    If an American manufacturing company laid off it's workers to move operations overseas where it's cheaper....that would be reported in the American news media as a bad thing. The headline and substance of the story, would be almost entirely negative. It would be called a loss for America, and a win for whatever shithole country the company moves its factory into.

    So shouldn't the reverse be true? If a foreign manufacturing company decides to move its operations to America, isn't that a win for a America??

    LG is spending $250 million dollars to build a washing machine factory in Tennessee, because importing washing machines from Korea costs too much now. So....what's the headline??

    LG is raising washing machine prices due to new Trump tariff
    http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/24/news...d=hp-stack-dom

    It's just so fraudulent I really don't understand how anyone takes CNN seriously anymore.
  7. #157
    What is fraudulent about it? I get that it's biased, but I'm confused on where the fraud is.
  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What is fraudulent about it? I get that it's biased, but I'm confused on where the fraud is.
    It's presented as bad economic news, when it is clearly good news.

    It is intentionally deceptive. Fraudulent.
  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's presented as bad economic news, when it is clearly good news.

    It is intentionally deceptive. Fraudulent.
    How do we know that is good news? I can tell you without even asking them that every one of my economics professors would say it's bad economic news. All the economists I read who don't like Trump, it's because of this stuff. Where did Paul Krugman derive his prediction of demise and never-recovery of the economy from a Trump victory? From the belief that Trump would do a tremendous amount of what is in the article.

    I agree with them that on the surface, this is not good news. But really, it depends, we don't know the details. Yet, if it's the case that LG has higher costs to make the same product now and that's why the price is going up, that is not a good thing. Part of my apologetics for Trump on this issue is that I do not believe that his intention was ever to have that effect. Also there are other indirect effects that economists do not adjust for that I believe are real. But, by itself, the article is presenting the initial observation most economists have about this sort of thing.
  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How do we know that is good news?
    Obviousness

    I can tell you without even asking them that every one of my economics professors would say it's bad economic news.
    More obviousness, your professors are on crack.

    All the economists I read who don't like Trump, it's because of this stuff. Where did Paul Krugman derive his prediction of demise and never-recovery of the economy from a Trump victory? From the belief that Trump would do a tremendous amount of what is in the article
    How's that prediction working out?

    I agree with them that on the surface, this is not good news.
    It's only bad news if you don't live in America. I'm sure you and your professors are viewing this through some kind of "globalization" lens

    But really, it depends, we don't know the details
    What details do you need?

    Yet, if it's the case that LG has higher costs to make the same product now and that's why the price is going up, that is not a good thing.
    This statement is only true if you stop thinking right there. However, spend about two more seconds pondering what this could mean, and then tell me how it's not a good thing. The higher price makes LG's product less competitive. In order to remain competitive LG must reduce it's cost. It can do that by moving operations to the US, which it is already doing, for precisely this reason. This relieves the pricing problem and replaces korean jobs with american jobs.

    Also, there is an effect on American companies already producing washing machines that I'll bet they are quite happy about.

    Part of my apologetics for Trump on this issue is that I do not believe that his intention was ever to have that effect.
    STOP! Cmon wuf. They guy has been screaming from the mountain tops that tax cuts are good for businesses.....what do you think he thought would happen if he raised taxes on a business?

    Also there are other indirect effects that economists do not adjust for that I believe are real. But, by itself, the article is presenting the initial observation most economists have about this sort of thing.
    No, the article is presenting a piece of anti-Trump propaganda disguised as an economic story. The headline reads, in effect, "Trump made stuff more expensive for you" When the auto industry moved jobs to Mexico, did the news media run headlines like "Dodge Rams are about to get cheaper"
  11. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    How's that prediction working out?
    Nobody calls Krugman as big of a loser as I do.

    It's only bad news if you don't live in America. I'm sure you and your professors are viewing this through some kind of "globalization" lens
    The globe isn't even a part of it. In closed economy models, increasing real costs for the same result lowers value.

    This statement is only true if you stop thinking right there. However, spend about two more seconds pondering what this could mean, and then tell me how it's not a good thing. The higher price makes LG's product less competitive. In order to remain competitive LG must reduce it's cost. It can do that by moving operations to the US, which it is already doing, for precisely this reason. This relieves the pricing problem and replaces korean jobs with american jobs.
    I agree. There is a lot more to it.

    No, the article is presenting a piece of anti-Trump propaganda disguised as an economic story. The headline reads, in effect, "Trump made stuff more expensive for you" When the auto industry moved jobs to Mexico, did the news media run headlines like "Dodge Rams are about to get cheaper"
    They're reiterating a pretty standard view of a simplistic view given by economists.
  12. #162
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No, the article is presenting a piece of anti-Trump propaganda disguised as an economic story. The headline reads, in effect, "Trump made stuff more expensive for you" When the auto industry moved jobs to Mexico, did the news media run headlines like "Dodge Rams are about to get cheaper"
    It's because of stupid fucking cucks who don't want to take responsibility for anything.
  13. #163
    Sometimes capitalists are really really really fucking stupid....

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mor...Raj?li=BBnb7Kz
  14. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Sometimes capitalists are really really really fucking stupid....

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mor...Raj?li=BBnb7Kz
    What's stupid?
  15. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What's stupid?
    Investing $100 million to create a product for which there is no market.
  16. #166
    They probably believe there is a market on account of avid fans dropping the NFL on account of the sorry ass kneelers.

    They could be wrong, could be right. I don't know. I know somebody who would check it out for that reason alone. I would too.
  17. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Investing $100 million to create a product for which there is no market.
    Why is there no market for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    They probably believe there is a market on account of avid fans dropping the NFL on account of the sorry ass kneelers.

    They could be wrong, could be right. I don't know. I know somebody who would check it out for that reason alone. I would too.
    He has done it before and spunked a tonne of money up the wall.
  18. #168
    That he did.
  19. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    They probably believe there is a market on account of avid fans dropping the NFL on account of the sorry ass kneelers..
    This is being WAY overblown as an explanation for the NFL ratings decline. The only evidence to support this anecdotal at best. Plus, it's virtually over with now anyway. If any players are still kneeling....no one cares.

    NFL viewership is down because viewership is down across ALL of television. The NFL is still the highest rated program, by alot.

    They could be wrong, could be right. I don't know. I know somebody who would check it out for that reason alone. I would too
    Morbid curiosity does not a market make.

    A legit complaint about the NFL is that the quality of the competition seems to have declined. My personal take is that the problem stems from a significant dearth of coaching talent. We all know Belichick is top dog, but after that, who is there?? I often ask this question as a punchline "Who is the second best coach in the NFL?"

    Anyway, I think it should be obvious to anyone with $100 million dollars that the American public has already made it clear that there is no room for a competing football league. This XFL already failed once. The USFL failed. Arena football is on life support, despite providing a product that is distinctly different and unique compared to the NFL.

    I think football fandom is more ritualistic than other sports. The once-a-week time slot fits into everyone's life, and satisfies their needs. Even the NFL is finding that there isn't much interest in their Thursday or Monday night games. They've batted around the idea of expanding the NFL season to 18 games instead of 16, and fans just shrugged.

    I mean, what on earth has convinced Vince McMahon that people will watch this?
  20. #170
    I'm in almost total agreement. I wouldn't invest in the XFL at any normal price.


    Belichick might be in the top five biggest sports phenoms of all time IMO.
  21. #171
    Jordan, Barry Sanders, two guys I don't know about, Belichick.
  22. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Belichick might be in the top five biggest sports phenoms of all time IMO.
    I said that the question was a punchline....but it can also be a serious question. "Who is the second best coach in the NFL?"

    A serious answer....there is a cluster of candidates we could debate that includes Sean Payton, Pete Carroll, Andy Reid, and no joke....probably Josh McDaniels (who is Belichick's assistant). Those four guys have won two championships collectively as head coaches. And after that there are 28 other head coaches who are even bigger losers.

    The Pittsburgh Steelers are a much much more talented team than the Patriots. They can't beat the Patriots because they are coached by absolute retards.

    The Patriots drew the Jags in the AFC Championship game. Did you see that?

    A delay of game penalty after a time-out??

    JAX got the ball back with the lead and about 6 minutes to go in the 4th quarter. They had one of the best running backs in football but decided to throw on three downs, and ultimately only took about a minute off of the clock, then gave the ball back to the guy who has 54 4th quarter comebacks to his credit.

    The Jags have all-pro corner backs, and the Patriots were missing their TWO best receivers (gronk and Edelman), yet the Jags played zone coverage for almost the entire second half of the game.

    That's a coaching staff that managed to win enough games to get to the AFC championship. What does that say about the teams they beat??
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-25-2018 at 05:00 PM.
  23. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Jordan, Barry Sanders, two guys I don't know about, Belichick.
    Deion Sanders is probably one of the most incredible demonstrations of athletic prowess there has ever been.

    And if we're talking phenoms of athleticism....we have to mention the freak of all freaks....

    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-25-2018 at 04:57 PM.
  24. #174
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    The XFL situation is extremely interesting and has a whole hell of a lot more depth than the treatment that it's getting. Here are a few important points:

    • Vince McMahon wants to get into sports. He's wanted to do this for this a long time, and he specifically wants to get into football. He wanted to buy the Canadian Football League, and he's been in talks to buy different NFL teams at different times.
    • He's waiting until 2020 to properly prepare, which was one of his key mistakes from the initial XFL run. How quickly that first run went from concept to being on television is insane.
    • This is his hobby, and he's doing it with his own money just because it's something he wants to do.
    • The losses of the first run from the XFL were not that bad at all. The WWF only lost $35 million, and that's after NBC fucked them on the TV deal that was originally for two years. I know that $35 million sounds like a lot to most people, but he's lost ten times that on a single day before. It's not a huge deal.
    • All of the shit about no players with criminal records and all of the shit about kneeling during the anthem is just marketing and promotion, and it worked. It's virtually the only reason it's getting the media attention it's getting. It's carny as fuck because he's carny as fuck, and aside from his massive balls is one of the biggest reasons why he went from getting the shit kicked out of him in a trailer park to being worth ten figures at one point.
    • The main reason he had a press conference this early without anything substantial to say was to make sure it was understood that it was being done with his own money and not under the WWE umbrella because that could affect WWE stock prices adversely.
    • McMahon is getting to the point now that he's going to be phasing out his involvement with WWE. This is the type of thing he's going to be transitioning over to, but it has to be handled carefully because him just pulling out completely would tank their stock.
    • The XFL is not competition for the NFL, and it's not trying to be. There's plenty of room for another league, and there's plenty of interest for more football. One particularly strong path they could try is to become a feeder league for the NFL, and that's something a lot of people would get behind because they feel the NCAA exploits athletes.
    • On the topic of investors and league structuring, it's worth noting that the original XFL didn't have franchise teams. The league owned all of the teams. That was an important point, and I think that it's a model that he'll want to continue with.

    Overall, it's a really good thing with no downside for virtually anyone.
  25. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Deion Sanders is probably one of the most incredible demonstrations of athletic prowess there has ever been.

    And if we're talking phenoms of athleticism....we have to mention the freak of all freaks....

    I'm not the best for current NFL discussion.

    Alls I know is there has only been one Barry Sanders. No NFL player has feats comparable to a fucking running back with a fucking awful line who virtually single-handedly carried the team and who ran circles around everybody with ease.
  26. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    who ran circles around everybody with ease.
    Even as those defenses were organizing their entire strategy around stopping Barry at almost any cost.

    Sanders is one of the only famous people I would possibly get excited to meet. Just for the mere fact that I would feel like I was in the presence of the most physically gifted person human genes has ever created.


    Why do you think Deion Sanders is so good?
  27. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Alls I know is there has only been one Barry Sanders. No NFL player has feats comparable to a fucking running back with a fucking awful line who virtually single-handedly carried the team and who ran circles around everybody with ease.
    He didn't carry his team very far. I remember a playoff game in the mid 90's where Barry logged -1 yards of rushing against Green Bay. The Lions were never considered "good", and were never considered better than second best within their own division during any of the years Barry played.

    I'm really not trying to knock Barry Sanders, I'm just not creaming my panties over him the way you are. I mean, even compared to his peers from the time, he doesn't measure up that well. He didn't play long enough, and he didn't win anything, and if he made his team better....it was only marginally so. And in the biggest games, he played his worst.

    By any tangible measure, and many intangible measures, Emmitt Smith was better.

    Also, there was another back whose agility and explosive running style was often talked about with far more accolades than Barry Sanders. The NFL historians and certainly those who followed the college game knew that even though Barry Sanders was great, he couldn't hold a candle to OJ Simpson. Then, for some reason, everyone stopped talking about OJ around 1993.
  28. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Why do you think Deion Sanders is so good?
    He completely re-defined the position. He was big enough, strong enough, and fast enough to cover any wide receiver in the game 1 on 1. He could cover a guy man-to-man, and still deny entire portions of the field to other receivers because he was so fucking fast. His numbers are impressive, but some of his best games have goose-eggs on the stat sheet. That's because offenses simply wouldn't ever put the ball anywhere near him.

    His career occurred during a time when the 'west coast offense' became en vogue. This system of offense did not require receivers to "get open". Basically it requires precise timing of route running and throwing. The receiver would run to a spot, at a certain time, and find the ball delivered there. This eviscerated defenses. The offense knows where the ball is going, the defense doesn't. It's trivially easy to deliver the ball there in less time than it takes for the defense to react and get there.

    In 1990, there was 1 QB in the whole league with over 4000 yards passing. in 1995, there were 4, and a whole slew of guys just slightly under that mark. Defense, overall, across the whole league was getting worse. Offenses were getting harder to stop.

    But not for Deion Sanders

    Size, strength, speed.....no other cornerback has had all three of those ingredients on a level comparable with Deion Sanders.

    The 49'ers and Cowboys were juggernauts of the NFC. They met in four consecuitive NFC championship games. The cowboys won the first two. Steve Young's 49ers just could not get by that cowboys team. Then in 1995, they got Deion Sanders. Bye bye cowboys.

    The following year, the cowboys threw a shitload of money at Deion. Bye bye 49'ers.

    He was literally that important to a team.

    Oh...and by the way...football wasn't his only professional sport. He played in a world series once.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-26-2018 at 09:26 AM.
  29. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    The XFL situation is extremely interesting and has a whole hell of a lot more depth than the treatment that it's getting. Here are a few important points:
    Depth??

    [*]Vince McMahon wants to get into sports. He's wanted to do this for this a long time, and he specifically wants to get into football. He wanted to buy the Canadian Football League, and he's been in talks to buy different NFL teams at different times.
    So he didn't get what he wanted, so he's just gonna force it? Isn't that called a tantrum??

    [*]He's waiting until 2020 to properly prepare, which was one of his key mistakes from the initial XFL run. How quickly that first run went from concept to being on television is insane.
    Actually, listening to his press conference, it sounds like this is just something he thought of yesterday. I don't really see "patience" from this guy.

    [*]This is his hobby, and he's doing it with his own money just because it's something he wants to do.
    It's still dumb

    [*]The losses of the first run from the XFL were not that bad at all. The WWF only lost $35 million, and that's after NBC fucked them on the TV deal that was originally for two years. I know that $35 million sounds like a lot to most people, but he's lost ten times that on a single day before. It's not a huge deal.
    That's dumb. So if I go buy a used, piece of shit, Chevy Monte Carlo and try to qualify for the Daytona 500 and fail, it's "not that bad" because my financial losses are really small?? Wouldn't it have been better if I had taken a bigger risk, bought a competitive car, hired a competent driver, and then attempted to compete? Maybe my losses would have been higher, but so would my chance of success.

    I don't care if its $35 million, or 35 cents, there's no justifiable reason to piss it away on something that has a 0% chance of success.

    [*]All of the shit about no players with criminal records and all of the shit about kneeling during the anthem is just marketing and promotion, and it worked. It's virtually the only reason it's getting the media attention it's getting. It's carny as fuck because he's carny as fuck, and aside from his massive balls is one of the biggest reasons why he went from getting the shit kicked out of him in a trailer park to being worth ten figures at one point.
    He's missed the bus on the anthem stuff. If that's his angle, he should have brought this up four months ago. He's really just saying that he's going to fix all the stuff that people don't like about the NFL. But he's forgetting to include all the stuff people DO like about the NFL. He's also overestimating how negatively the stuff people don't like is actually impacting the NFL.

    One thing he emphasized in his press conference, other than "family friendly", was "simpler rules". This sounds terribly naive.

    One can only assume he's talking about controversial calls in some games where the definition of "a catch" is open to interpretation. The NFL already simplified this rule. The ball has to "survive the ground". Now it's simple. There's no ambiguous language about "a football move". There's no, "when did he have possession...and was it over the line" That's all gone. Either a catch is a simple, obvious, incontrovertable thing....or it's not a catch.

    You end up with some close calls, like the PIT/NE game about six weeks ago. But you actually end up with LESS close calls than you would by creating a set of rules that exactly matches "the eyeball test".

    Furthermore, the NFL refs are trained to suck. It's by design. It doesn't matter if they saw the guy's knee hit the ground first...if the ball comes out, rule it a fumble every single time. It doesn't matter if they saw the guy land out of bounds...just rule it a touchdown every single time. They do this, because turnovers and scoring plays are subject to video review 100% of the time. So call it that way on the field, and you'll have the opportunity to get it right, every single time, with the benefit of replay.

    If you rule that the guy was down before he fumbled, or that he didn't score, then the play is not review-able. That means that human beings have to get it right every single time.

    This is simply a case of the fans not knowing what they want. They want the right call 100% of the time, but they also hate waiting for the video reviews. The NFL seems to have found a happy compromise, and they've refined it slightly as people's tastes change.

    Vince hasn't really offered any better solutions. He just says "games should be faster".

    [*]The main reason he had a press conference this early without anything substantial to say was to make sure it was understood that it was being done with his own money and not under the WWE umbrella because that could affect WWE stock prices adversely
    Just having a connection to this crackpot should send WWE's stock plummetting.

    [*]McMahon is getting to the point now that he's going to be phasing out his involvement with WWE. This is the type of thing he's going to be transitioning over to, but it has to be handled carefully because him just pulling out completely would tank their stock.
    Trump gave all his businesses to his kids. Haven't heard about any of them tanking. Why don't the shareholders trust Shane-O-Mac and his Mean Street Posse??

    [*]The XFL is not competition for the NFL, and it's not trying to be. There's plenty of room for another league, and there's plenty of interest for more football. One particularly strong path they could try is to become a feeder league for the NFL, and that's something a lot of people would get behind because they feel the NCAA exploits athletes.
    People would not get behind this. In order for it to be a "feeder" league for the NFL, they would have to recruit young athletes trying to make it into the NFL. And most quality football players know for sure, one way or the other, whether they are on an NFL track by age 19-20. So kids dropping out, or forgoing college entirely is not something I expect will be embraced by the public. It's already a significant knock against the NBA.

    Furthermore, there really isn't 'plenty of interest for more football'. Arena Football and the CFL are ratings black-holes. Take a look at how many arena franchises have opened up and subsequently folded. There have been 62 different Arena football franchises since 1987. Only five of them are still in business. FIVE!!! OUT OF 62!!

    If people REALLY wanted more football, the NFL would add two more games to it's regular season. But nobody wants that. Literally nobody, not even fans. And here's why. Injuries happen. In order for a team to play two more games, they would have to expand the roster to allow for more players, so teams can make it through a longer season. So let's say you expand the roster from 53 guys, to 60. That's 7 more guys on each team. Times 32 teams. That's 224 players who, right now, could not make an NFL roster.

    The NFL runs 16 games a week, and on any given week, at least half of them are unwatchable. Absolutely nobody wants an extra 224 bums running around diluting the talent pool. So it doesn't follow that anyone would want to see an entire league full of bums.

    [*]On the topic of investors and league structuring, it's worth noting that the original XFL didn't have franchise teams. The league owned all of the teams. That was an important point, and I think that it's a model that he'll want to continue with.
    He is going to keep that model. And so far every reaction I've heard to it has been "awww that's neat". But no one has said "why" that would be a good thing. Seems to me like it would undermine competition and make it harder for the fans in a city connect with it's home team.

    It also seems like a system that is ripe for corruption. I mean, an NFL team can't put a concussed player back on the field because there would be consequences from the league. Also, the other competing teams would call them out for it. If the league and the competing teams are all one entity....who's looking out for the concussed player?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-26-2018 at 10:32 AM.
  30. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    He didn't carry his team very far. I remember a playoff game in the mid 90's where Barry logged -1 yards of rushing against Green Bay. The Lions were never considered "good", and were never considered better than second best within their own division during any of the years Barry played.

    I'm really not trying to knock Barry Sanders, I'm just not creaming my panties over him the way you are. I mean, even compared to his peers from the time, he doesn't measure up that well. He didn't play long enough, and he didn't win anything, and if he made his team better....it was only marginally so. And in the biggest games, he played his worst.

    By any tangible measure, and many intangible measures, Emmitt Smith was better.

    Also, there was another back whose agility and explosive running style was often talked about with far more accolades than Barry Sanders. The NFL historians and certainly those who followed the college game knew that even though Barry Sanders was great, he couldn't hold a candle to OJ Simpson. Then, for some reason, everyone stopped talking about OJ around 1993.
    Other variables. Even the best player gets creamed if the other variables don't work right. I remember laughing at how often Emmitt Smith had holes the size of the Grand Canyon opened to him by his amazing line that he just ran straight through. Barry rarely go those holes. He made his own holes. Put Smith on the Lions back then and nobody would even remember his name. The Lions had one great offense player, Barry. That Barry's results far worse than they would have been since he couldn't build off of teammates success as well and defenses allocated more resources to stop Barry than they would otherwise. The Cowboys from then had the opposite problem. With several great offense players, each could build off the results created by the others, and the defenses against them couldn't allocate resources so directly against any individual.
  31. #181
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    I'll go point-by-point with you on this once, but I'm not going to go into paragraphs-long discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So he didn't get what he wanted, so he's just gonna force it? Isn't that called a tantrum??

    He turned down various offers. Additionally, making shit happen when you aren't getting what you wanted is called being a man.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Actually, listening to his press conference, it sounds like this is just something he thought of yesterday. I don't really see "patience" from this guy.

    It's easy to think that without knowing the depth of the situation or as much about his history.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I don't care if its $35 million, or 35 cents, there's no justifiable reason to piss it away on something that has a 0% chance of success.

    The XFL had tremendous opportunity to become profitable in its second season for a wide variety of reasons, but I'm not going to drag this out any longer than it needs to be since it's pointless. Moreover, after most of the remaining assets were sold, they lost less than $5 million on it. To say they had a 0 percent chance of success is nowhere near reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    He's missed the bus on the anthem stuff. If that's his angle, he should have brought this up four months ago.

    In response to this and the following several paragraphs: You're getting worked. The anthem stuff doesn't matter. None of the content of the conference matters.


    That press conference and every single thing in it was to get out ahead of the speculation of what was going on after he started moving XFL trademarks around and sold WWE stock. It was a move to keep the WWE stock price from suffering, and it worked wonderfully because WWE stock hit an all-time high right after the press conference.


    That was the one and only purpose of the press conference. Thinking anything else, or thinking that he should have been "offering better solutions" misses the boat.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Just having a connection to this crackpot should send WWE's stock plummetting.

    See the above.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Trump gave all his businesses to his kids. Haven't heard about any of them tanking. Why don't the shareholders trust Shane-O-Mac and his Mean Street Posse??

    For a short answer that's in the spirit of what you're asking: Both of his kids have shown they can't handle it and that they aren't skilled enough to run the show. The closest one is his daughter's husband, who has more or less been groomed for the role for years now, and he's shown a ridiculously high amount of promise. However, nobody knows if he'll actually be put in charge or not if Vince was to croak.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    People would not get behind this.

    It hasn't hurt the NBA, and people are more resentful towards the NCAA for exploiting college football players than ever before.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Furthermore, there really isn't 'plenty of interest for more football'. Arena Football and the CFL are ratings black-holes. Take a look at how many arena franchises have opened up and subsequently folded. There have been 62 different Arena football franchises since 1987. Only five of them are still in business.

    The XFL would not use the franchise model. That model is a major source of problems for Arena football, as you've illustrated. Additionally, the CFL and AFL have very poor marketing and promotion, but in spite of that, their ratings aren't nearly as bad as you're trying to indicate here. Your idea of extending the NFL season doesn't work as an analogy either because it's a different league, different players, etc. In short, none of your reasoning backs your claim that there isn't more interest for football.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Absolutely nobody wants an extra 224 bums running around diluting the talent pool. So it doesn't follow that anyone would want to see an entire league full of bums.

    This is poor logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It also seems like a system that is ripe for corruption. I mean, an NFL team can't put a concussed player back on the field because there would be consequences from the league. Also, the other competing teams would call them out for it. If the league and the competing teams are all one entity....who's looking out for the concussed player?

    He has a history of looking out more for concussed individuals in the past five years than the NFL does. Moreover, your idea that the only reason that NFL teams don't put hurt players back on the field is that other teams would give them shit shows little to no understanding of that particular dynamic.
  32. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    He completely re-defined the position. He was big enough, strong enough, and fast enough to cover any wide receiver in the game 1 on 1. He could cover a guy man-to-man, and still deny entire portions of the field to other receivers because he was so fucking fast. His numbers are impressive, but some of his best games have goose-eggs on the stat sheet. That's because offenses simply wouldn't ever put the ball anywhere near him.

    His career occurred during a time when the 'west coast offense' became en vogue.
    How have defenses effectively responded to the West Coast Offense?
  33. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How have defenses effectively responded to the West Coast Offense?
    They haven't. They only thing you can really do is hope to get a Deion Sanders. Shut-down cornerbacks are one of the best paid positions in football. Stephon Gilmore gets $13M a year to do this....



    There was one quarterback who threw for 4,000 yards in 1990. There were 4 in 1995. Now, it's considered "average"

    Barry Sanders would be nobody if he played today. The evolution of NFL offenses has seriously demoted the importance of the running back.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-26-2018 at 12:38 PM.
  34. #184
    It would be neat to see. I might argue that Barry would shine greatly in this environment, where defenses have gotten better at stopping the straightfoward running back and stopping the Grand Canyon holes created by great linemen.
  35. #185
    Hey BStand, you're a big, big fan of tax cuts. As you should be because they are great. What do you think about getting more tax cuts by spending less on bureaucracy?
  36. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Hey BStand, you're a big, big fan of tax cuts. As you should be because they are great. What do you think about getting more tax cuts by spending less on bureaucracy?
    The question is really broad, so it's hard to answer.

    In some ways, I could support spending more on bureaucrats in order to attract smarter, more qualified candidates to the positions. The government's inability to compete with the private sector for talent is a really significant weakness of government.

    On the other hand, the government usually spends a lot of money on stupid stuff, so I can certainly get behind a plan that reduces that.

    If you're asking me if I believe that he government already has enough money to meet all of its responsibilities, then I would say yes and then some.

    You can't even explain to me why income tax is a thing. I'm in the camp that says "Hey government, I'm gonna keep all of my money. You go ahead and run this country off of sales, import, and property taxes...and leave me alone"
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-26-2018 at 01:42 PM.
  37. #187
    Income tax is among the least effective taxes there are.

    But Muh Social Justice
  38. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Income tax is among the least effective taxes there are.
    That's why we don't have it in the Live Free or Die state.
  39. #189
    No income tax is a real boon to the few states that don't have it.
  40. #190
    Washington is likely to eventually get it because of its growth in the emotion-first crowd. Hopefully I will leave the state by then.
  41. #191
    Do you have a sales tax or value-added tax or w/e in your state? ' Cause commie-red Alberta doesn't.
  42. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Do you have a sales tax or value-added tax or w/e in your state? ' Cause commie-red Alberta doesn't.
    No Sales or Income tax

    Live free or die
  43. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No Sales or Income tax

    Live free or die
    So who pays for your roads and shit? Or do you all just build your own?
  44. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Do you have a sales tax or value-added tax or w/e in your state? ' Cause commie-red Alberta doesn't.
    High sales, high property.

    Sales tax is probably the best kind of tax, though probably the most disliked by people. Property is better than income.
  45. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So who pays for your roads and shit? Or do you all just build your own?
    Property taxes are high. But that keeps property values low, so no one really notices. My place in Massachusetts (literally less than 15 miles away), would cost 3x as much and the property taxes would be about 1/3. Altogether, my mortgage+tax payment is probably around half of what it would be for a similar place in Mass.

    One other thing my state does...car registration is fucking expensive. If if you just have an 'average' car like an Accord, putting a new set of wheels on the road will cost you $500-ish. And you have to renew every year. Though as your car depreciates, the registration fee also declines. My 5 year old Ford Fusion costs about $115 to register now.

    Oh, also, the government has a monopoly on booze. That helps pay for a lot of shit.
  46. #196
    So they just find different ways to live free or pay taxes.

    Granted, Alberta sits on a lake of oil and so can afford to be generous with taxpayers. Every other province does have a sales tax.

    Gov't in AB used to monopolize booze, but they realised that was pinko commie talk, so they privatized booze sales. I think some other provinces still do things the commie NH way though.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-26-2018 at 02:17 PM.
  47. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    One other thing my state does...car registration is fucking expensive. If if you just have an 'average' car like an Accord, putting a new set of wheels on the road will cost you $500-ish. And you have to renew every year. Though as your car depreciates, the registration fee also declines. My 5 year old Ford Fusion costs about $115 to register now.

    Oh, also, the government has a monopoly on booze. That helps pay for a lot of shit.
    Sounds like Washington. No more booze monopoly though.

    When the congress can't raise taxes they just keep raising fees. And adding more fees. Power creep is real.
  48. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So they just find different ways to live free or pay taxes..
    There have been studies. I remember reading that when everything is all taken into account, NH residents send the smallest % of their paycheck to the government, regardless of how it gets there.
  49. #199
    Do you have equalization payments in the US? Like some states/provinces pays extra in to the feds and they give it to the shithole provinces/states?
  50. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Do you have equalization payments in the US? Like some states/provinces pays extra in to the feds and they give it to the shithole provinces/states?
    states/provinces themselves don't make money or pay taxes, so I'm not understanding what you mean
  51. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    states/provinces themselves don't make money or pay taxes, so I'm not understanding what you mean
    In Canada, the feds take money from 'have' provinces and give it to 'have not' provinces. It's called 'equalization'.

    I'm guessing the answer is that no such thing occurs in the US.
  52. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    In Canada, the feds take money from 'have' provinces and give it to 'have not' provinces. It's called 'equalization'.

    I'm guessing the answer is that no such thing occurs in the US.
    Sounds like taxation without representation. We consider that a bad thing here.

    The province should be taxing its citizens in order to generate the funds necessary to operate the functions of the province. The fed should be taxing its citizens in order to generate the funds necessary to operate the functions of the fed. Fin.

    What kind of shithole government needs to shoe-horn an extra stage of bureaucracy into that equation?

    NOTE: In America sometimes the 'function of the fed' is to provide financial aid to states in need. But that money would come out of their own tax revenue.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-26-2018 at 02:34 PM.
  53. #203
    All right we're gonna give you stuff because you're not doing well but don't take this to mean that you not doing well is why we're giving you stuff.
  54. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Sounds like taxation without representation. We consider that a bad thing here.
    Pretty much all taxation is unequal, so not sure why you apply that argument to this specifically.
  55. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    All right we're gonna give you stuff because you're not doing well but don't take this to mean that you not doing well is why we're giving you stuff.
    It's not considered a reward for sucking (strangely enough). It's considered a balance for variance. At one point before they struck black gold AB was parched farmland and was on the receiving end of these payments. Now, they're on the giving end.
  56. #206
    I have no opinion on the specifics of that case or on the specifics of that policy.
  57. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Pretty much all taxation is unequal, so not sure why you apply that argument to this specifically.
    Why do you like taxation?
  58. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Why do you like taxation?
    That wasn't my argument.
  59. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    That wasn't my argument.
    I know. I'm asking a new question.
  60. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I know. I'm asking a new question.
    Your question assumes I like taxation. Let's start with at the bottom of that- why do you assume I like taxation?
  61. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Your question assumes I like taxation. Let's start with at the bottom of that- why do you assume I like taxation?
    You've generally embraced any position that the Democrat party tells you to. Why would we expect you to treat taxation any differently?
  62. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You've generally embraced any position that the Democrat party tells you to. Why would we expect you to treat taxation any differently?
    Why do you assume I'm a mindless follower of a political party in a country i don't live in? Is it because I don't like Trumpy wumpy?
  63. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Why do you assume I'm a mindless follower of a political party
    Based on all the mindless following you do
  64. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Based on all the mindless following you do
    The fact that two views coincide doesn't imply that one follows the other.
  65. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The fact that two views coincide doesn't imply that one follows the other.
    Are you gonna answer wuf's question or what?
  66. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are you gonna answer wuf's question or what?
    I'm waiting for him to answer mine, because he is assuming something about me which is at its base groundless.
  67. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I'm waiting for him to answer mine, because he is assuming something about me which is at its base groundless.
    If the premise of his question is incorrect, then just say so. Otherwise, answer the question.

    What are you getting out of being glib and facetious?
  68. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If the premise of his question is incorrect, then just say so.
    I just did.
  69. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I just did.
    No, you challenged the grounds for his assumption. You didn't say that he was wrong.
  70. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Your question assumes I like taxation. Let's start with at the bottom of that- why do you assume I like taxation?
    Do you regard taxation as a preferred solution sometimes?

    Discard that I said "like". This is my new question.
  71. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Do you regard taxation as a preferred solution sometimes?

    Discard that I said "like". This is my new question.
    He might need some more hand-holding through this. You should back up and go one step at a time.

    Poop - Do you like money??
  72. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Do you regard taxation as a preferred solution sometimes?

    Discard that I said "like". This is my new question.
    Solution to what? Unless you make the question clear I can't answer it.
  73. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Unless you make the question clear I can't answer it.
    Called it

    (post 221)
  74. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Solution to what?
    To what you believe is a problem.
  75. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    To what you believe is a problem.
    How do you know what I believe is a problem, or that I think a problem exists in the first place?

    The point of this exercise is to get you to ask the question in a more generic way. For example, you might say 'Do you think taxation is good? And if so, why do you feel this way?'

    As stated, the question assumes I hold a position I may or may not hold and then asks me to defend it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •