Interesting response to Goodell by the players
MZ
(link is easier to read than the quoted text below)
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2011/03/players_send_re.html
Dear Roger,
This responds to the letter you sent all NFL players on March 17.
We start by reminding you that we were there at the negotiations and
know the truth about what happened, which ultimately led the players
to renounce the NFLPA’s status as the collective bargaining
representative of NFL players. The players took this step only as a
last resort, and only after two years of trying to reach a reasonable
collective bargaining agreement and three weeks of mediation with
George Cohen of FMCS. At all times during the mediation session we had
representatives at the table with the authority to make a deal. The
NFL representatives at the mediation did not, and the owners were
mostly absent.
The mediation was at the end of a two-year process started on May 18,
2009, when our Executive Director sent you a letter requesting audited
financial statements to justify your opting out of the CBA (letter
attached).
The NFLPA did all it could to reach a fair collective bargaining
agreement and made numerous proposals to address the concerns raised
by the owners. In response, the owners never justified their demands
for a massive give-back which would have resulted in the worst
economic deal for players in major league pro sports.
That is why we were very troubled to see your letter, and repeated
press reports by yourself, Jeff Pash, and the owners, which claim that
the owners met the players halfway in negotiations, and that the
owners offered a fair deal to the players.
Your statements are false.
We will let the facts speak for themselves.
The proposal by the NFL was not an “a la carte” proposal. The changes
in offseason workouts and other benefits to players were conditioned
upon the players accepting an economic framework that was unjustified
and unfair.
Your proposal called for a pegged amount for the salary cap plus
benefits starting at 141M in 2011 and increasing to 161M in 2014,
regardless of NFL revenues. These amounts by themselves would have set
the players back years, and were based on unrealistically low revenue
projections. Your proposal also would have given the owners 100% of
all revenues above the low projections, including the first year of
new TV contracts in 2014. Your offer did NOT meet the players halfway
when it would have given 100% of the additional revenues to the
owners.
As a result, the players’ share of NFL revenues would have suffered a
massive decrease. This is clear by comparing your proposal to what the
players would receive under the 50% share of all revenues they have
had for the past 20 years.
If NFL revenues grow at 8% over the next four years (consistent with
Moody’s projections), which is the same growth rate it has been for
the past decade, then the cap plus benefits with our historical share
would be 159M in 2011 (18M more per team than your 141M proposal) and
grow to 201M per team in 2014 (40M more per team than your 161M
proposal).
Your proposal would have resulted in a league-wide giveback by the
players of 576M in 2011 increasing to 1.2 BILLION in 2014, for a total
of more than 3.6 BILLION for just the first four years. Even if
revenues increased at a slower rate of only 5%, the players would
still have lost over 2 BILLION over the next four years. These amounts
would be even higher if your stadium deductions apply to the first
four years (your proposal did not note any such limits on these
deductions).
We believe these massive givebacks were not justified at all by the
owners, especially given recent projections by Moody’s that NFL media
revenues are expected to double to about 8 BILLION per year during the
next TV deal.
Given that you have repeatedly admitted that your clubs are not losing
money, the billions of dollars in givebacks you proposed would have
gone directly into the owners’ pockets. We understand why the owners
would want to keep 100% of this additional money, but trying to sell
it as a fair deal to the players is not truthful.
You proposed a CBA term of ten years. But you did not include any
proposal on the players’ share of revenues after the first four years,
which left open entirely how much more the owners would have taken
from the players.
The owners continued to refuse any financial justification for these
massive givebacks. Our auditors and bankers told us the extremely
limited information you offered just a few days before the mediation
ended would be meaningless.
Your rookie compensation proposal went far beyond addressing any
problem of rookie “busts” and amounted to severely restricting veteran
salaries for all or most of their careers, since most players play
less than 4 years. What your letter doesn’t say is that you proposed
to limit compensation long after rookies become veterans – into
players’ fourth and fifth years. As our player leadership told you and
the owners time and time again during the negotiations, the current
players would not sell out their future teammates who will be veterans
in a few short years.
Your proposal did not offer to return the 320M taken from players by
the elimination of certain benefits in 2010. It also did not offer to
compensate over 200 players who were adversely affected in 2010 by a
change in the free agency rules. Your letter did not even address a
finding by a federal judge that you orchestrated new television
contracts to benefit the NFL during the lockout that you imposed.
You continue to ask for an 18 game season, offering to delay it for
only one more year (you earlier said it could not be implemented in
2011 no matter what doe to logistical issues). This was so even though
the players and our medical experts warned you many times that
increasing the season would increase the risk of player injury and
shorten their careers.
All of the other elements you offered in the mediation, which you
claim the players should have been eager to accept, were conditioned
on the players agreeing to a rollback of their traditional share of
50/50 of all revenues to what it was in the 1980’s, which would have
given up the successes the players fought for and won by asserting
their rights in court, including the financial benefits of free agency
the players won in the Freeman McNeil and Reggie White litigations
more than 20 years ago.
The cap system for the past twenty years has always been one in which
the players were guaranteed to share in revenue growth as partners.
Your proposal would have shifted to a system in which players are told
how much they will get, instead of knowing their share will grow with
revenues, and end the partnership.
You had ample time over the last two years to make a proposal that
would be fair to both sides, but you failed to do so. During the last
week of the mediation, we waited the entire week for the NFL to make a
new economic proposal. That proposal did not come until 12:30 on
Friday, and, when we examined it, we found it was worse than the
proposal the NFL had made the prior week when we agreed to extend the
mediation. At that point it became clear to everyone that the NFL had
no intention to make a good faith effort to resolve these issues in
collective bargaining and the owners were determined to carry out the
lockout strategy they decided on in 2007.
We thus had no choice except to conclude that it was in the best
interests of all NFL players to renounce collective bargaining so the
players could pursue their antitrust rights to stop the lockout. We no
longer have the authority to collectively bargain on behalf of NFL
players, and are supporting the players who are asserting their
antitrust rights with the Brady litigation. We have heard that you
have offered to have discussions with representatives of the players.
As you know, the players are represented by class counsel in the Brady
litigation, with the NFLPA and its Executive Committee serving as an
advisor to any such settlement discussions. If you have any desire to
discuss a settlement of the issues in that case, you should contact
Class Counsel.
Sincerely,
Kevin Mawae
Charlie Batch
Drew Brees
Brian Dawkins
Dominique Foxworth
Scott Fujita
Sean Morey
Tony Richardson
Jeff Saturday
Mike Vrabel
Brian Waters
Ritchie
understand why owners have to share revenue with the players. The
players get a salary and that should be it. If I was an owner my
attitude would be "I pay my dogs to play and that's enough" I hope the
owners bust the union, even if it takes sacrificing a season. I want
to see the players come back with their tails tucked firmly between
their legs! I know it was the owners decision to opt out of the last
CBA and they did so rightfully. They are the ones putting their money
into the game and should be allowed to make as much of a profit as
they can. Owners don't owe the players anything except their salaries.
We now return to our regular programming :)
Ray O'Hara
"Ritchie" <ritch...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c933afe-8ef4-4565...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
no players no league.
Ritchie
> "Ritchie" <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That most likely would never happen.
Ray O'Hara
=======================================================================================
we'll see. the NFL starts with an inferior product and they'll suffer at the
ticket booth and TV ratings.
nobody tunes in because of Bob Kraft or Woody Johnson.
PS. the players are going to kill the owners in court, the NFL hasn't won a
case yet and they won't this time.
Papa Carl
The quality of the play would go down. And...more likely, someone who
actually cares about guys willing to risk serious consequences to make big
money for a short term period would create a new venue for them to play in.
I have to admit, I was a little surprised at your response above Ritchie.
Did you not belong to one of the police organizations, PBA or one similar?
Or...are you in the camp of Gov. Christie and some others who believe people
doing a dangerous job are "dogs" hired to do the job and that's enough?
Ritchie
> we'll see. the NFL starts with an inferior product and they'll suffer at the
> ticket booth and TV ratings.
> nobody tunes in because of Bob Kraft or Woody Johnson.
I understand what you are saying but fans are sheep and would
eventually start watching and attending as the product improves. It
may never get back to what it was and some teams would have to be
eliminated but, it would still have an audience.
> PS. the players are going to kill the owners in court, the NFL hasn't won a
> case yet and they won't this time
I know that the players will win in court, I just wish they wouldn't.
The players have to be put in their place but it wont happen.
Ritchie
Yes, I belonged to the PBA but I believe that if a person chooses a
career where his life is on the line, they could get hurt or killed
that its their choice and no one else's responsibility. I never
expected any special thanks or benefits from the public, I had my
police and union benefits and that was fine by me. I, unlike I would
say 80% of the police officers in the NYPD wanted to be a police
officer and I knew the risks and took them voluntarily. I didn't
become an officer because of the pay or the medical benefits and so on
like most did. Because of my reason why I became a PO whenever I was
paired with a new partner I always asked him or her if they were
married and / or had children. If they answered yes I would tell the
sergeant that I would rather patrol solo. I was shotgun qualified and
that is the only way NYPD allows officers to patrol solo, unless the
PO was on summons detail. My reasoning for not wanting to work with a
married partner and / or one that has children is that in a bad
situation they would most likely have their judgement clouded by
thinking about their family first and not the situation. Now I was /
am married but I never ever thought about what would happen to my wife
because she would receive good decent death benefits, had a degree and
worked in her chosen profession making good money. She would be well
without me. In regards to the "hired dogs" comment, when we work for
someone or a company that is all we really are. Besides being an
attorney I also own an insurance investigation company and the people
that work there are just my hired dogs. I tell them what to do and
they do it, if they don't they get fired. Now I treat them well with
good pay, vacation time and good medical benefits but when it comes
down to it, if they get fired or quit I can replace them with relative
ease.
Ray O'Hara
==============================================================================
not at $100+ a ticket they won't.
there havwe been some other attempts at legues and the fans have been well
disguised as empty seats.
without a union there is no one to bargain with,. that makes things like
salary caps an illegal monopoly and we know how the courts "love" collusion.
Ray O'Hara
"Papa Carl" <papa...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nJedneRYPsFFphjQ...@giganews.com...
the players will all come back. but they'll all be free agents at the end
of any contract, no rookies held in bondage for x amount of years, a salary
cap would be illegal collusion.
the owners need the union to bargain with.
no union and such things like salary caps and the like are illegal labor
practices and monopolistic.
no franchise tags, so much the owners love will be verboten.
Papa Carl
I think if someone is willing to perform a dangerous service that others
can't do and for any reason want someone to do, that the person who does the
job should be taken care of in a respectable way. To me that means treating
them like people and placing value on them. I don't want to be treated like
a piece of property or less than human and I don't treat others that way.
I'm damn glad I don't work for you and never would. Yes, I expect people
who work under me to do the job, and I demand it. I have fired several
people in my time who thought they had a higher agenda than what the job was
about or what I wanted done, but I always thought of them as people, not
dogs. When I take a job, I take it to do the job that is wanted of me and
don't expect anything other than the pay and what is negotiated. I do
belive for the most part that was what the union started out wanting. From
everything I have read the owners are the ones manipulating things. I don't
think the owners, at this point, give a damn about the quality of the game
anymore. They have come to believe the fans will watch whatever they put out
there...maybe they are right too. But I sure as Hell won't watch.
MZ
It's a negotiation. When an employer wants an employee, he offers him
a salary. If an employee makes more than minimum wage, it isn't
because the employer is just being nice, or adhering to some sense of
ethics or whatever. It's because he realizes he has to pay more than
minimum wage to get that employee to join his company. Right now, the
players are saying, "your offer isn't high enough for me to accept the
position you're offering", just as any other skilled worker would do
if they felt the salary was too low.
For this reason, I'm not on either side. I realize that ultimately
both the employer and employee need to find a middle ground or BOTH
will end up losing out. This middle ground will be the product of a
(somewhat) fair negotiation.
Anyway, what I find interesting about this particular scenario is that
Goodell is an idiot. He tried to blatantly bypass the union and speak
to the players directly, which is a definite no-no in any type of
union dispute like this. I think his rationale was that if they
decertified then the union no longer represents them or something.
But that doesn't mean they're no longer organized. I think it was a
power play on his part, and I think the players did a reasonable job
of explaining why they're taking the stand they're taking. They're
doing a MUCH better job of releasing this sort of information than the
owners are, who seem to be playing the role of politicians here with
sound bites and spin.
Harlan Lachman
<30ff6e3c-e6bc-417b...@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Ritchie <ritch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if they get fired or quit I can replace them with relative
> ease.
If there is a response to your post, it can only be based on this
clause.
The question at issue is whether the tiny percentage of football players
able to play in the NFL can be easily replaced.
If so, they will be.
If not, and reasons why not might be the league advertising the
"essential" skills of its stars so that fans identify the sport with the
players (either legitimately or due to effective advertising) or the
fact that few can play the grueling Pro game well enough, then there
will have to be revenue sharing of some kind or the game most of us
watched will become unwatchable, viewership will decline, and the owners
will capitulate or kill the golden goose.
Time will tell.
Harlan
Papa Carl
"Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
news:harlan-514272....@news60.forteinc.com...
Excellent observation Harlan. I watched a couple of the UFL games...and
they illustrated your point. A couple of finished NFL QB's did not make it
watchable sport. The USFL was a totally different story because it captured
some of the best talent coming out of college...my point was an NFL
unattractive to those guys would drive the success of a new league.
Papa Carl
"MZ" <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:ac5cede5-ee92-408e...@d12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
I couldn't agree more. Well explained.
Michael
Goodell is a decent well meaning commish that also happens to be a
bumbeling fool. He steps on his own dick with regularity.
Harlan Lachman
<5a9ebbd0-e8d4-4fce...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Michael <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Goodell is a decent well meaning commish that also happens to be a
> bumbeling fool.
What do you expect the man to do or say when he is hired by a bunch of
very rich morons who want to break a union, spank the players, and lock
up enough money for every owner so that they don't need to use revenue
sharing to create profitability for the small market teams?
They be the boss so he plays to their lack of a tune. That is why he
keeps calling for the union to come back to the table as though there
still was a union and the decertification was a sham and not allowed.
Personally, unlike others on this blog, I hope the new judge shoves a
hot poker up the owners' collective anuses, forcibly ends the lock out,
rules the owners were guilty of collusion in their response to the
uncapped year, and provides damages to the class assumed in the class
action suit.
harlan
Papa Carl
:-) While I would agree with you...I'm looking at the climate now....ain't
the right weather. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2012 Republican Candidate
didn't pledge to ban and outlaw all unions...we now have reverse socialism
coming to us and the true free enterprise is called street crime.
Papa Carl
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40316cf9-4063-4acf...@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
X-No-Archive: Yes
> :-) While I would agree with you...I'm looking at the climate now....ain't
> the right weather. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2012 Republican
> Candidate
> didn't pledge to ban and outlaw all unions...we now have reverse socialism
> coming to us and the true free enterprise is called street crime.
Papa, while no one should be screwed or taken advantage of the attempt
of painting these govt workers as a union is problematic. The Eugene
V Debs days are long gone and when people are out of work the
aggrieved party isn't the teacher. It is the out of work fill n the
blank, the underpaid, low or no benefit worker who shouldn't suffer
while employees that we fund, don't suffer as well.
This is about $. It is not only about fiscally bankrupt states but the
Dems continuing a big source of revenue via union dues & the GOP
trying to cut that off. Both sides think the other guy's money is
always bad while their $ serves the public interest. I think it is
all bad.
Oh..OK...I'll tell that to the several out of work teachers I know...and the
few I also know who were forced into retirement at a much reduced
pension...You are right...the GOP is trying to cut off the major source of
support that the Democratic Party has...plain and simple union busting. I
am flatly opposed to those kinds of tactics. I would NEVER work in a school
setting without some kind of protection from a union type group...you would
be nuts to do that in this climate.
Papa Carl
X-No-Archive: Yes
They are both wrong here and both sides overplayed their hands.
Govt work was accepted as being lower paying due to security &
pension. The artificial, i.e. borrowed prosperity, starting in 1980's
fooled pols into playing Santa Claus & changing that dynamic.
Teachers (goov't workers) are a very powerful group in all states and
when their benefits & pensions were disclosed they didn't have the
support as most don't enjoy that.
Walker wasn't honest either as he exempted police & fire from this.
9/11 & public sentiments make them holy cows. I ask why? Why is
education, public works less important than police?
Papa it isn't union busting. They just want to take away the
mandatory dues, i.e. Democratic political revenue. It strikes me as
anti-democratic to force someone to be a part of something. The Beck
decision made it clear that it was unconstitutional.
Like I said everyone points to the other guys' money. Buckley - Valeo
was one of the worst things that happened to this country as that is
always the excuse when govt funding of elections pop up. Then it was
a more left leaning court but the decision was anonymous. Now it
will be the right leaning court that will kill AZ public funding. I
say get rid of all the rules & just tell me where they got their money.
Can't agree...it's union busting....have you ever worked for any legnth of
time at serious manual labor? Construction? Something of that nature?
Have you ever had a public type job where you can have any tax payer come in
and go after you? If you go do that you may want some group to have your
back.
Papa Carl
X-No-Archive: Yes
We don't agree I am shocked call teh wire services!
:)
it's union busting....have you ever worked for any legnth of
> time at serious manual labor? Construction? Something of that nature?
Just enough to figure it out that it wasn't for me.
__________________________________________________________
You see, that's interesting...because most of the folks I know who would
also say that
probably go along with a lot of the anti-union thinking and would also never
want to do
that kind of work. The fact is though, somebody has to do that
work...somebody has to work
in the sewer too...and reality is that work is more important than a lot of
the stuff "upscale" folks
want to do...the clean jobs. I'd rather have a building that doesn't fall
down and a sewer that works
than go to bed assured the local hedge fund manager is happy and financially
set.
____________________________________________________________
> Have you ever had a public type job where you can have any tax payer come
> in
> and go after you? If you go do that you may want some group to have your
> back.
I am not arguing whether unions are needed or not. I believe in
certain cases they are and in other cases they don't add any value for
the worker.
What I am arguing is that the goal isn't union busting as civil
servants will still be some of the most coddled employees in the
country with or w/o the union. The goal is simply to deny the
Democratic party money by letting these workers not pay dues if they
choose to do so. The case law supports that. I wish the argument was
just about the $.
btw Papa I agree that teachers need to be protected as I did 3 years
on a school board. I also think that many "reformers" don't know
anything about education and many of their well intended ideas are
things that don't work. Not all business solutions can be dropped in
a educational setting and be effective. One, pay for performance, is
just plain counterproductive.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MOST if not all non education professionals who get involved in education
screw it up...big time. Teaching is an art, and good teachers are
passionate about that art. We have denegrated that so much that it is lost
now. My head is still loaded with quotes and ideas gained from a 12th grade
history teacher...he was pure artist at his job and inspired people. We
care nothing about guys like him today. I left teaching in part because I
had a lot of issues with not only how they were running things but also the
caliber of the teachers I had to work with...I could not stand teachers who
didn't like kids....the profession has been trashed to the extent that it
gets filled with left overs and people looking for any job they can get.
AND...it is not just the pay...it is the image and status of the job...a lot
of good young people simply do not want to carry that burden. I wanted to
be productive, have goals, and help kids...I found I could do it to a
greater extent in behavioral healthcare so I did the work necessary and made
the transition after 25 years in education. Still, I met some brilliant
people in education who never were allowed to do what they were capable of.
THE BIGGEST issue today in education is what is happening in the
culture..not just the classroom...we have lost parenting, being responsible
for what goes on with your own kid...and wonderful corporate Republican
America has done their share to make that happen...work longer hours,
totally dedicated to the corporation and job...both parents need to work,
two jobs for middle class paretns (two each)...tighten that belt up and do
with less....no or poor healthcare, ....Reality is we do not value
"education" perse in this country...people who can afford to educate THEIR
children value it...but we do not value educating the entire populace just
as we do not see any value in having a healthy populace...BOTH of which
would make this a better country. And we mask that lack of true patriotism
by claiming it is personal responsibility and self determination...truth is
we are self centered and selfish...we do not care what happens to the
Nation.
Papa Carl
X-No-Archive: Yes
You are generalizing. I wold do whatever work I had to do to feed my
family. Trying to sustain a middle class livelihood for unskilled
workers many reasons is unsustainable in our country. Sorry, if we
can lay off autoworkers we can cut back at teh govt level.
BTW I use that same argument when people ask me what will happen to
all the lawyers & accountants that will be misplaced temporarily if we
eliminated corp income tax & start taxing earnings & dividends like
wages.
>The fact is though, somebody has to do that
> work...somebody has to work
> in the sewer too...and reality is that work is more important than a lot
> of
> the stuff "upscale" folks
> want to do...the clean jobs. I'd rather have a building that doesn't fall
> down and a sewer that works
> than go to bed assured the local hedge fund manager is happy and
> financially
> set.
Well some of that is guaranteed by upscale folks like engineers as
well.
I would agree with most of this especially your point about the
national culture but why call it corporate Republican America? It is
as silly as blaming the equal rights movement for the two income
families. We all have our hands in it. Honestly I feel the biggest
villain is television.
I'm referring to the Tea Party idiots and the Republicans who embrace the
stupidity. Who supports paying back bankers...protecting corp. execs., and
giving the wealthiest a tax break while we decide to cut things that affect
the poorest and most needy? TV is horrendous, I agree. No doubt that our
belief in all things capitalistic has given license to destroy the minds of
children. And then we say it's the parents fault for letting them watch the
crap....that reaction is a pure excuse and lack of values and standards. It
is possible to have Satruday morning TV and other kids programming that is
not destructive. The idea that "competition" is always good is flat out
stupid...it is not always good. In many things cooperation and pooling of
efforts and talents would bring about a much better solution. I
particularly love drug companies who jack up prices and site their research
costs...then go dip deep into the Federal funding they so love. By
attaching a profit qualifier to all solutions all we do is create more
problems. We can not figure anything out or allow a thing to be fixed
unless someone can make a profit out of it....that will ensure progress
never happens and we never solve our problems. We will be burried by the
greed that controls the system.
MZ
> The idea that "competition" is always good is flat out
> stupid...it is not always good.
When is it bad? Or, put another way, when are monopolies good?
Papa Carl
You didn't read what I wrote.....cooperation is sometimes the best way to
get a problem solved...not definitely seeking a profit in the process. If
you want a vaccine for something and the only way it can be achieved is if
ONE company develops it and makes a profit...you probably will not get it
the quickest way and it won't be the best one. Identify a problem, set
goals and then supervise cooperative efforts to work together to solve a
problem. Have all of the best of the best working on it.
MZ
Yeah, I think that's often a bad idea. Without competition for some
resource (whether money, prestige, or whatever), the best of the best
can get lazy or can make decisions that don't have the end goal in
sight. In the case of vaccines, competition in the marketplace after
it's developed directly leads to lower prices. The lack of
competition (artificially implemented through intellectual property
law) routinely gives rise to high prices and shortages. "Cooperation"
in the business world unfortunately becomes collusion most of the time.
Papa Carl
Your description is a huge flaw in the mindset and culture of rampant
capitalism. It was never intended that ALL things be in the market. Take a
football player, let's say an offensive lineman....the skill set to do that
job can be defined...so a few individuals can compete to see who has the
best skill set, you will get a winner but you solve no problem...you do not
come up with anything new. What I'm saying is we need to change that
dynamic in many areas. And...it does work in academia and people who are
focused to just do it. The reward is soving the problem and making the
world a little better. The way we solve problems is to usually create
another one. Expedience is not always the best way to go. Again, OMHO. I
agree with you about the business world...they are lost, that's why they no
longer function for the greater good of the Nation or society as a
whole...their motive is very self serving in most if not all cases.
Papa Carl
X-No-Archive: Yes
> I would agree with most of this especially your point about the
> national culture but why call it corporate Republican America? It is
> as silly as blaming the equal rights movement for the two income
> families. We all have our hands in it. Honestly I feel the biggest
> villain is television.
>
> I'm referring to the Tea Party idiots and the Republicans who embrace the
> stupidity. Who supports paying back bankers...protecting corp. execs., and
> giving the wealthiest a tax break while we decide to cut things that
> affect
> the poorest and most needy?
Papa, with all due respect comments like that are as dangerous as the
extreme Tea Party people.
Both sides want a caricature of the other. I find it puzzling when
immediately people are yelling Hannity, Tea Party, Rush, etc. What
most of Tea Party people want is the end of being overtaxed & seeing
waste. They generally aren't racists, idiots etc. Their points are
valid.
Are the Moveon people all extremist? You would agree with most of
them but they are no different than manty Tea Party people in that
they see things they don't like, organize & $ flow to them. It is the
$ infecting the process. We can't blame the other guys' money & say
our money is pure because we think we are right.
>TV is horrendous, I agree. No doubt that our
> belief in all things capitalistic has given license to destroy the minds
> of
> children. And then we say it's the parents fault for letting them watch
> the
> crap....that reaction is a pure excuse and lack of values and standards.
> It
> is possible to have Satruday morning TV and other kids programming that is
> not destructive. The idea that "competition" is always good is flat out
> stupid...it is not always good. In many things cooperation and pooling of
> efforts and talents would bring about a much better solution.
Markets are like $ in the process. People like it when they benefit
them.
There is big $ in media -- another reason we will have trouble
reigning in campaign $ --& having a "free market" is in their
interest & their is a bipartisan rich man's party. It isn't a free
market as the barriers to entry are huge.
>I
> particularly love drug companies who jack up prices and site their
> research
> costs...then go dip deep into the Federal funding they so love. By
> attaching a profit qualifier to all solutions all we do is create more
> problems. We can not figure anything out or allow a thing to be fixed
> unless someone can make a profit out of it....that will ensure progress
> never happens and we never solve our problems. We will be burried by the
> greed that controls the system.
The Tea Party isn't racist...yet they carry signs depicting the President as
a witch doctor or worse.
When the GOP is as interested in the collective good of the Nation as it is
in abortion, outlawing non-existent Sharia law and other nonsense I'll give
them some of my attention. Do you think the sources of revenue the Dems
look for, the unions, and extremist groups like MoveOn as you call them can
rival the revenue of major corporations and Wall Street? Do you believe a
corporation should have the rights of an individual?
MZ
> The Tea Party isn't racist...yet they carry signs depicting the President as
> a witch doctor or worse.
> When the GOP is as interested in the collective good of the Nation as it is
> in abortion, outlawing non-existent Sharia law and other nonsense I'll give
> them some of my attention. Do you think the sources of revenue the Dems
> look for, the unions, and extremist groups like MoveOn as you call them can
> rival the revenue of major corporations and Wall Street? Do you believe a
> corporation should have the rights of an individual?
Papa, please tell me you're not suggesting that the democrat party
isn't just as beholden to corporate interests as the republican
party...
Papa Carl
Oh they are...absolutely...but there are more corporate Republicans than
corporate Dems....the Dems, especially the current admin is very self
serving and covers all bases. Not so rigid on pricipals.
Papa Carl
X-No-Archive: Yes
> The Tea Party isn't racist...yet they carry signs depicting the President
> as
> a witch doctor or worse.
So are you nti-American because Democrats have said or done anti-
American things? I would say no. Are you an idiot because Moveon or
the Acorn folks have said or done idiotic things and made racist
comments? Again, I would say no.
If burning the flag is a symbol of our freedom so is someone's right
to be an idiot. Generally the ugly & stupid things end. Perhaps
because someone with a brain or a sense of decency jumps in or maybe
because it hurts them politically & that causes it to stop.
>Because some
> When the GOP is as interested in the collective good of the Nation as it
> is
> in abortion, outlawing non-existent Sharia law and other nonsense I'll
> give
> them some of my attention.
That is simplistic at best.
>Do you think the sources of revenue the Dems
> look for, the unions, and extremist groups like MoveOn as you call them
> can
> rival the revenue of major corporations and Wall Street?
If you look at the top ten PAC's for the past 5 years they are
largely labor. I don't think they can go toe to toe financially with
corporate interests but I am against everyone's money. I assume you
found the Wall St. $, Silicon Valley $, Hollywood $, etc. repulsive
when it went to Clinton, Gore, & co.?
>Do you believe a
> corporation should have the rights of an individual?
It is the law but like I said I don't like money in the process. If
you were a billionaire & you crammed transplant legislation by buying
Congress isn't that as dangerous if I was a billionaire & bought
legislation?
I believe they should limit $ into campaigns, have time lines, &
transparency. Failing that get rid of all the rules & just tell us
where it is coming from. I have written here before that the post-
Watergate reforms sowed the seeds of budget problems. Worse it led
PACS.
OK...I go with the system England uses for campaigns...and basically anybody
can afford to run...I agree...good idea.