Socialism Wins The Super Bowl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:07 am

I was not aware the Green Bay Packers is a publicly owned team, were you? I wonder why conservatives aren't attacking The Packers like they are PBS. Any answers?

Like the few municipal services that still remain in today’s era of Reaganomics, the publicly owned Green Bay Packers are a rare exception to this norm. That's why the story of the team's organizational structure is suppressed -- because it shows the most important question facing our nation isn't about accepting or rejecting socialism. We've already accepted it. Instead, the real question is about what specific type of socialism we want: the current kind that works only for those in the luxury box, or the kind that starts working for the rest of us?

The Super Bowl of socialism - Super Bowl - Salon.com

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:40 am

Ahso!;1353434 wrote: I was not aware the Green Bay Packers is a publicly owned team, were you? I wonder why conservatives aren't attacking The Packers like they are PBS. Any answers?

The Super Bowl of socialism - Super Bowl - Salon.com

The Packers and Pride of Ownership (CMCSA, CMCSK, LCAPA, LCAPB, RCI)

Now public ownership is socialism? :-3

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:05 am

The financial structure of The Packers is good with you? Surely you're okay with the idea of public ownership of the American health care system? Isn't that the fear behind the individual mandate, that public ownership may eventually result?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:08 am

Ahso!;1353434 wrote: I was not aware the Green Bay Packers is a publicly owned team, were you? I wonder why conservatives aren't attacking The Packers like they are PBS. Any answers?

The Super Bowl of socialism - Super Bowl - Salon.com

Public Television is not funded the same way as the GBP. PT is funded with tax dollars and GBP is funded by investors.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:09 am

It's a bit ironic that Wall Street (the so called nerve center of capitalism) is rooted in the idea of spreading out ownership to a large group of people. The companies want everyone to invest in them, and hence all property to be publicly owned.

The only difference between socialism and capitalism is in weight of the vote regarding decisions of the shared property. Capitalists prefer a "pay-to-play" system where the more money you have, the more say you have in the decisions regarding the shared property. Another word for that is "bribery" however. Whereas socialism is geared more towards "one-person-one-vote."

On that level, it's clear why republicans want a republic and not a democracy.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:19 am

Ahso!;1353440 wrote: The financial structure of The Packers is good with you? Surely you're okay with the idea of public ownership of the American health care system? Isn't that the fear behind the individual mandate, that public ownership may eventually result?

I'm fine with ppl joining in a private business venture to negotiate lower health care costs even if it's a non-profit.

I think they call that...wait for it...

BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD

DUH. :wah:

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:25 am

yaaarrrgg;1353444 wrote: On that level, it's clear why republicans want a republic and not a democracy.

The founders of this nation looked around and designed the 'great American experiment'. They saw democracies degenerated into mob rule. Representative republics worked in a manner they wanted to emulate. So, yes, conservatives, and not necessarily all R's, are for Constitutional rule. I hear the socialists have a toilet paper with the Constitution printed on it. Kool for you, eh?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:59 am

BaghdadBob;1353446 wrote: The founders of this nation looked around and designed the 'great American experiment'. They saw democracies degenerated into mob rule. Representative republics worked in a manner they wanted to emulate. So, yes, conservatives, and not necessarily all R's, are for Constitutional rule. I hear the socialists have a toilet paper with the Constitution printed on it. Kool for you, eh?

as long as it is the ultra soft kind

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:03 am

littleCJelkton;1353448 wrote: as long as it is the ultra soft kind

Agreed.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:07 am

Is this what you want?

Attached files

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:07 am

oh and I am not giving it to no weird cartoon bears to wipe their ass with.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:44 am

littleCJelkton;1353453 wrote: oh and I am not giving it to no weird cartoon bears to wipe their ass with.

A good socialist would share. :-4

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:49 am

From Merriem-Webster Online: Definition of SOCIALISM

1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

The Green Bay Packers model fits this definition. You'd be okay if all football teams were structured the same as Green Bay?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:02 am

Ahso!;1353472 wrote: From Merriem-Webster Online: Definition of SOCIALISM

1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

The Green Bay Packers model fits this definition.

Only in your mind.

You'd be okay if all football teams were structured the same as Green Bay?

Does that mean tax payers not funding those glorious edifices to house kids games played by millionaires working for billionaires? I'm jiggy with it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:03 am

Lon;1353443 wrote: Public Television is not funded the same way as the GBP. PT is funded with tax dollars and GBP is funded by investors.That's true, but there is no return on the investment other than the existence of the product itself if I understand it correctly (feel free to educate me if I have that wrong). From Baghdad's link: Sometimes, though, the sentiment may be what you're most interested in. Witness all the online services that will sell you a single framed stock certificate of the company of your choice. You'll probably never get rich off that sole share, but at least you can proudly say you own a small piece of your favorite company.

That's pretty much what it's like to be an owner of the reigning Super Bowl champion. PBS is also an investment with basically the same financial reward with the difference being that one is done voluntarily through public offering and the other is not (government direct investment on behalf of the populous). I suppose it would be interesting to see if PBS would garner equal support under the same model. My guess is it would not because it's educational.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:10 am

Ahso!;1353472 wrote: From Merriem-Webster Online: Definition of SOCIALISM

1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

The Green Bay Packers model fits this definition. You'd be okay if all football teams were structured the same as Green Bay?Read it again, Baghdad. I've even made it easier for you since you're stricken with a comprehension problem.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:12 am

BaghdadBob;1353446 wrote: The founders of this nation looked around and designed the 'great American experiment'. They saw democracies degenerated into mob rule. Representative republics worked in a manner they wanted to emulate. So, yes, conservatives, and not necessarily all R's, are for Constitutional rule. I hear the socialists have a toilet paper with the Constitution printed on it. Kool for you, eh?

That's not my point. There's no real difference between capitalism and socialism other than the way vote weight is calculated. In a Republic, you can set up a "pay-to-play" system where the government can be auctioned off the highest bigger. In a democracy, you can't as easily set up a pay-to-play system.

If you actually read the Constitution, you'd know it was compatible with socialism or capitalism.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:09 pm

Ahso!;1353478 wrote: That's true, but there is no return on the investment other than the existence of the product itself if I understand it correctly (feel free to educate me if I have that wrong). From Baghdad's link: PBS is also an investment with basically the same financial reward with the difference being that one is done voluntarily through public offering and the other is not (government direct investment on behalf of the populous). I suppose it would be interesting to see if PBS would garner equal support under the same model. My guess is it would not because it's educational.

No----you are right-----I was wrong---the citizens of Green Bay own the team and there is no return on investment other than satisfaction when the team is winning.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:11 pm

BaghdadBob;1353459 wrote: A good socialist would share. :-4

A good socialist would never give away more than what they need to cope, obviously "wipe" in this context. One would have to care about themselves enough to care for others...

Some people are so worried about not being provided for inside the definition of equal oppurtunity they assume they might work harder than they have to at the very expense of starving others...

Lets approach this with simple math... 5 apples for 5 people means 5 people with 5 apples... Show of hands, who here thinks 5 = 4 within this very simple equation, let alone which "4 people" will get the 5 apples? How fn selfish is that?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:13 pm

Lon;1353510 wrote: No----you are right-----I was wrong---the citizens of Green Bay own the team and there is no return on investment other than satisfaction when the team is winning.

I've known my entire life just how much more of a return "satisfaction" is in place of material possessions...

SnakeDoctor · Post by **SnakeDoctor** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:45 pm

According to your logic, most of the largest companies in the world should be attacked by conservatives.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 6:16 am

SnakeDoctor;1353529 wrote: According to your logic, most of the largest companies in the world should be attacked by conservatives.Huh?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:17 am

A community decision to make such an investment is a far cry from representatives of the several states committing the entire nation to one. Living outside the city limit is easy. It's not so easy to avoid a dumb investment if the entire nation is required to make it.

Interesting model, though. If the city doesn't realize a return on their investment, what happens to the profits? Bonuses to the players & staff?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:10 am

Accountable;1353541 wrote: A community decision to make such an investment is a far cry from representatives of the several states committing the entire nation to one. Living outside the city limit is easy. It's not so easy to avoid a dumb investment if the entire nation is required to make it.

Interesting model, though. If the city doesn't realize a return on their investment, what happens to the profits? Bonuses to the players & staff?What it suggests is that the two models (PBS and The GBP) represent the highest quality of given products in both markets and, Americans should adopt a more open mind regarding the idea of economics driven by collective input and reward instead of the "greed is good" philosophy. The truth is that we achieve better results when we act as a group. Religion has proven this, and now so has the quality of television content and sports. Corporations believe it too, that's why they keep trying to grow bigger and bigger, the problem they have however is they are too exclusive (i.e. restrictive to investment dollar amount influence) to realize best results.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:17 pm

Ahso!;1353547 wrote: What it suggests is that the two models (PBS and The GBP) represent the highest quality of given products in both markets and, Americans should adopt a more open mind regarding the idea of economics driven by collective input and reward instead of the "greed is good" philosophy. The truth is that we achieve better results when we act as a group. Religion has proven this, and now so has the quality of television content and sports. Corporations believe it too, that's why they keep trying to grow bigger and bigger, the problem they have however is they are too exclusive (i.e. restrictive to investment dollar amount influence) to realize best results.Yeh, I couldn't find out, either, but I didn't see the need to bloviate.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:54 pm

Accountable;1353541 wrote: A community decision to make such an investment is a far cry from representatives of the several states committing the entire nation to one. Living outside the city limit is easy. It's not so easy to avoid a dumb investment if the entire nation is required to make it.

Interesting model, though. If the city doesn't realize a return on their investment, what happens to the profits? Bonuses to the players & staff?

I would presume a bigger war chest to buy better players, improve the stadium, reduce ticket prices etc.

TroyLangan · Post by **TroyLangan** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:58 pm

Interesting.. didnt know GPB was public