Online Now 591

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Online now 527
Record: 4487 (2/14/2012)

Boards ▾

OUInsider - Owen Field

The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports

Basketball & Other Sports

Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Tickets Exchange

The place to buy, sell or trade tickets

Reply

Long read but who agrees? Im sure not many.

  • DIVORCE AGREEMENT

    Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
    We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

    Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

    Here is a model separation agreement:
    --Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

    --We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
    --You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
    --Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
    --We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.
    --You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

    --We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
    --You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.
    --We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.
    --We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

    --You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
    --You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

    --We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
    --You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

    --We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
    --You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
    --We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
    --We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
    --I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".

    --We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

    --Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

    Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

    Sincerely,
    John J. Wall
    Law Student and an American

    P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, &Jane Fonda with you.

    P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

  • I think I'm in love!

    (in a good way) lol

    “Any people anywhere........have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

  • I wonder who would have the better football team.

  • Ruprecht said... (original post)

    I wonder who would have the better football team.

    The Lib side would never lose a game........

    ....because they don't keep score.

    “Any people anywhere........have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

  • zeeb10 said... (original post)

    The Lib side would never lose a game........

    ....because they don't keep score.

    They all would receive trophies as well....

  • John Wall? You use the name of the Wizards point guard to propose a divorce?

    Also an interesting concept, a football game between Cons and Libs.

    I suppose. first, the question of which TV network does the game. Mr. Wall mentions NBC but since Hollywood is also given, it seems like ABC (ESPN) and CBS also goes to the Libs. Also TNT. The Cons get to keep Fox News and Fox Sports. By the divorce decree, it appears most of the games will be on lib channels.

    Now, who coaches the game? Famous political Cons like Jack Kemp, Darryl Royal or Tom Osborne? Perhaps. The Libs will probably take Barry Switzer.
    Now, about the players? Since it's normally assumed all Republicans are Cons and all Democrats are Libs, the figures will need to be divided along Dem/Pub lines.

    If it's team made up of college players, it'll be over 90 % black. Even though 40 % of college students call themselves independent, much more black students call themselves Democrats.
    Switzer's Lib team will pick mostly blacks, except for J.C. Watts, who'll play for the Cons. The Cons get to pick from the Black Republicans and the 10 % of leftover white players.

    The Lib college team would likely be favored.

    However, if you pick the team from pro players, the demographics change.

  • SilliSooner said... (original post)

    John Wall? You use the name of the Wizards point guard to propose a divorce?

    Also an interesting concept, a football game between Cons and Libs.

    I suppose. first, the question of which TV network does the game. Mr. Wall mentions NBC but since Hollywood is also given, it seems like ABC (ESPN) and CBS also goes to the Libs. Also TNT. The Cons get to keep Fox News and Fox Sports. By the divorce decree, it appears most of the games will be on lib channels.

    Now, who coaches the game? Famous political Cons like Jack Kemp, Darryl Royal or Tom Osborne? Perhaps. The Libs will probably take Barry Switzer. Now, about the players? Since it's normally assumed all Republicans are Cons and all Democrats are Libs, the figures will need to be divided along Dem/Pub lines.

    If it's team made up of college players, it'll be over 90 % black. Even though 40 % of college students call themselves independent, much more black students call themselves Democrats. Switzer's Lib team will pick mostly blacks, except for J.C. Watts, who'll play for the Cons. The Cons get to pick from the Black Republicans and the 10 % of leftover white players.

    The Lib college team would likely be favored.

    However, if you pick the team from pro players, the demographics change.

    yeah, but the libs would abhor actual physical force and (shudder) violence.. where as the cons would actually sort of look forward to it...

  • SilliSooner said... (original post)

    John Wall? You use the name of the Wizards point guard to propose a divorce?

    Also an interesting concept, a football game between Cons and Libs.

    I suppose. first, the question of which TV network does the game. Mr. Wall mentions NBC but since Hollywood is also given, it seems like ABC (ESPN) and CBS also goes to the Libs. Also TNT. The Cons get to keep Fox News and Fox Sports. By the divorce decree, it appears most of the games will be on lib channels.

    Now, who coaches the game? Famous political Cons like Jack Kemp, Darryl Royal or Tom Osborne? Perhaps. The Libs will probably take Barry Switzer. Now, about the players? Since it's normally assumed all Republicans are Cons and all Democrats are Libs, the figures will need to be divided along Dem/Pub lines.

    If it's team made up of college players, it'll be over 90 % black. Even though 40 % of college students call themselves independent, much more black students call themselves Democrats. Switzer's Lib team will pick mostly blacks, except for J.C. Watts, who'll play for the Cons. The Cons get to pick from the Black Republicans and the 10 % of leftover white players.

    The Lib college team would likely be favored.

    However, if you pick the team from pro players, the demographics change.

    I can promise you I would happily give up football for a country such as the one spoke of by John Wall! I would give up a lot of things for it actually.

  • SOONERT2002 said... (original post)

    I can promise you I would happily give up football for a country such as the one spoke of by John Wall! I would give up a lot of things for it actually.

    That was called the Confederate States. But can you imagine the Southeast without Southeast Conference Football?

  • Taun said... (original post)

    yeah, but the libs would abhor actual physical force and (shudder) violence.. where as the cons would actually sort of look forward to it...

    Really?

    That's a little distorted when you read John Wall's proposal.

    The libs get Hollywood, the evil guys who bring you most of TV and Big Screen violence, the same guys who control most of the video game industry. Also he gives NBC to the libs but I'm sure he means "the mainsteam media" which includes HBO (and the evil lib, Bill Maher) which shows boxing. and ABC which is Disney (who are protested every few months by the Baptists for being kind to gays) so then you add ESPN (and it's multitude of violent sports) to the mix.

    Lots of both sides of the mouth things going on. Hating Hollywood but loving violence? Doesn't equate.

  • nm

    This post was edited by SoonerInTN 12 months ago

  • SilliSooner said... (original post)

    Really?

    That's a little distorted when you read John Wall's proposal.

    The libs get Hollywood, the evil guys who bring you most of TV and Big Screen violence, the same guys who control most of the video game industry. Also he gives NBC to the libs but I'm sure he means "the mainsteam media" which includes HBO (and the evil lib, Bill Maher) which shows boxing. and ABC which is Disney (who are protested every few months by the Baptists for being kind to gays) so then you add ESPN (and it's multitude of violent sports) to the mix.

    Lots of both sides of the mouth things going on. Hating Hollywood but loving violence? Doesn't equate.

    you really don't get it do you? The people that would want this are people that could care less about the stuff you are talking about. The important parts are what he wrote about in the first place. If you are liberal would please tell me if you would be ok with what he said because you should be from what the liberals always talk. I am a conservative and love what he has written!

  • I'm a moderate. I think all these conservative/liberal labels and definitions of what's a conservative and what's a liberal are bullsh*t. But I do understand the socialism/laissez-faire argument as it pertains to sports.

    It's easy to say pro-baseball is laissez-faire capitalism as it's currently run.
    1) No salary cap and more freedom for free agents
    2) The wealthier team/markets can load up
    3) Slow to drug-test w/ eye on the bottom line
    4) Field size is not regulated
    5) Baseball draft has little affect on redistributing talent
    6) Weak to moderate players union

    NFL Football is more socialistic
    1) Salary Cap means all teams compete equally
    2) Worst teams draft first and can quickly improve roster
    3) The schedules are arranged by the league with the better teams getting tougher schedules
    4) Strong players union

  • SoonerInTN said... (original post)

    You are the one that brought abc, hbo, etc into the argument, not the original author.

    Basically, I do agree that the libs could have better athletes in college, but the fact that they wouldn't play for anything other than pride would drive all the high school athletes with any skill to move to the conservative states in order to play for a chance to really get paid.

    There wouldn't be any incentive for the players to excel in lib country.

    I did bring ABC and HBO into the discussion. True, Mr. Wall didn't mention it but why bring up NBC without ABC, the home of Oprah. But Mr.Wall did bring up Hollywood and the word "Hollywood" is synonymous with Disney, parent of ABC and ESPN.

    As far as players not having any incentive to play in the Lib Nation, I question that.
    In the Con nation, the only ones making money will be the owners.
    Since they'll be no collective bargaining, the players will be Wisconsined and forced to play for pittances.
    More later...

  • SilliSooner said... (original post)

    I did bring ABC and HBO into the discussion. True, Mr. Wall didn't mention it but why bring up NBC without ABC, the home of Oprah. But Mr.Wall did bring up Hollywood and the word "Hollywood" is synonymous with Disney, parent of ABC and ESPN.

    As far as players not having any incentive to play in the Lib Nation, I question that. In the Con nation, the only ones making money will be the owners. Since they'll be no collective bargaining, the players will be Wisconsined and forced to play for pittances. More later...

    nm

    This post was edited by SoonerInTN 12 months ago

  • SoonerInTN said... (original post)

    again, you made inferences.

    Millions is a pittance? I guess we all wish we had your bank.biggrin

    No, what I said was in the imaginary world of Con Nation vs Lib Nation the players would make more money in Lib Nation.

    The assumption they'll make millions in Con Nation is false, unless the players own the teams. Why do I say that? It's because the players used to play in Con Nation. Before 1970 the players had no bargaining rights. The owners held all the cards. No unions, no collective bargaining. In the ideal world of John Wall, it's every man for himself. Let's take a look at some history:

    NFL Salary History

    The average NFL salary is close to $2 million, but players were not always so well compensated. In fact, for much of football's history, players often worked secondary jobs in steel mills, on ranches or as salesmen to make ends meet. The only time a player takes a "second" job now is on TV in the hopes of getting a career once he has hung up his cleats. The high salaries were won through decades of battles with owners as well as due to football's ascension to the status of America's favorite sport.

    Red Grange

    While paid players predate the formation of the NFL in 1920 by several decades, most players were paid on a per-game basis. In 1926, Red Grange changed that when he signed a 19-game deal with the Chicago Bears that earned him roughly $100,000. That was the first large NFL contract.

    During the next few decades, player salaries depended on their star quality and the teams they played for. Some teams were stingy with money, while others paid in other ways--in the late 1950s, Baltimore Colts often got free beer after games. Starting around the late 1950s, players demanded a league minimum, but that fell on deaf ears. The average player at the time was getting less than $6,000 per season.

    The Players Association finally won recognition in 1970, and the owners agreed to a $9,000 minimum salary for rookies and $10,000 for veterans. The minimum salary crept higher through the 1970s.
    Salary Wars

    Rival leagues often helped escalate salaries. In the 1960s, it was the AFL, followed by the WFL in the 1970s and the USFL in the 1980s. Salaries jumped due to bidding, including the famous John Brodie case where he was offered close to $750,000 to go to the AFL. He had been making $35,000 in the NFL.

    The NFL strikes in 1982 and 1987 led to an explosion in salaries because the players won the rights to get more team revenues as well as the ability to bargain collectively. That helped average salaries go from $198,000 in 1986 to almost $800,000 by the start of the 1993 season.

    So you see, Sooner in TN, the players might be more inclined to play in Lib Nation, where they can bargain collectively, won''t be frozen out by the owners, etc.

    It's an interesting conundrum.

    This post was edited by SilliSooner 3 years ago

  • Players would make what ever players make. Just like any other job.

    $100,000 in 1926 was pretty big money.

    And going back to the days of players playing for the love of the game wouldn't be so bad. And there was some pretty good ball back then. Ruth, The Mick, Grange........

    If you don't like the money.......go do something else.

    “Any people anywhere........have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

  • zeeb10 said... (original post)

    Players would make what ever players make. Just like any other job.

    $100,000 in 1926 was pretty big money.

    And going back to the days of players playing for the love of the game wouldn't be so bad. And there was some pretty good ball back then. Ruth, The Mick, Grange........

    If you don't like the money.......go do something else.

    Zeeb,

    The one year Red Grange experiment was a total exception. Guys were making under $ 3000 per year to play in his day.
    The NFL players continued to make $ 5000 to 9000 average through the 50s & 60s.
    Not until collective bargaining took place, plus competition from another league did FB players make appreciably more than average workers.

    That was my point. A divorce between the good from cons and the good from libs won't work. Especially, when it comes to sports.
    Well, I take that back. It won't work for team sports but it will for individual sports, somewhat.
    All the pro golfers, pro tennis players, pro bowlers and rodeo pros will live in Con country.
    Those are totally merit sports where the pay is prize money only.
    However, to do endorsements or be in TV ads they'd have to make a trip to Lib country.
    I'm sure something can be worked out.
    I'm not sure where Tiger Woods would live.

    Con country would have all the gospel and country music.
    Lib country would have rock n' roll, jazz, r & b and comedy (except for Dennis Miller)

    I guess that's equitable.