Same here. And I gave Barry and Jerry a chance, but it became a ****-show pretty fast. And slowly but surely they destroyed a franchise. I'm just glad I was able to see greatness for a short period of time. And once Jerry dies or sells the team, I'll give them another chance.
How about the Miss America contest announcing that it's dumping the swimsuit competition and WILL NO LONGER JUDGE WOMEN ON OUTWARD PHYSICAL APPEARANCE! Isn't that an oxymoron? What is a beauty contest if contestants aren't judged for their beauty? Other changes will include; they will welcome large size women, women can wear what ever makes them comfortable, there will be lots of discussion of how the women plan to advance their "social-impact initiatives", etc. Sounds exciting doesn't it? And, it isn't mentioned, but how long before the first transgender woman makes an appearance (are you listening Bruce, er Caitlyn}? If this catches on, I think I'll enter the Mr. Olympia competition next year. I think my combination of beer belly and skinny white legs will be tough to beat, especially after I explain how I plan to advance Donald Trump's political agenda. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/us/miss-america-swimsuit-trnd/index.html
I feel exactly the same though I do have some loyalty to the legacy due to the many years I lived in Dallas. I still enjoy watching them play. But think about it; my son is 21 years old. The Cowboys have won two playoff games in the past 22 years. My son has no idea why they were once known as America's Team. Jones has completely destroyed the legacy. And yet, he and his son sit smugly at the dais during the draft and press conferences smiling away because THEY CAN. I can't stand those guys. But speaking of Barry Switzer, maybe Garrett will fail again, get fired and Jones might do us a favor and snatch Lincoln Riley up as the next coach. That would be interesting.
Why do I feel like this is going to turn into an all-female version of "America's Got Talent"? BTW for the record, I couldn't care less. I didn't watch it before, won't watch it now.
I haven't watched Miss America in well over 30 years. Back in the day when there were only 3 TV channels and Bert Parks hosted every year, I watched a few pageants. There wasn't much else on TV. But, somebody must watch it. It's lasted all this time. These changes should mercifully kill it.
If it weren't for their beauty no one would pay attention to most of those girls anyway. Have you heard them speak? If anything they should speak less and prance more.
That'll teach Asians to work so damn hard and make everybody else look bad. Ease up! Play some video games you guys.
It's a "moral imperative". Naturally, when the unqualified kids gain admission, the quality of the school will drop accordingly. In addition, the unqualified chirrens won't fair too well with greater competition.
A long time ago I came across a term called "Mindless Egalitarianism." I think this is a further example of it. Maybe they ought to worry more about what is happening in the current classrooms 70% that are in the regular public schools. His comment about who owns those classrooms is more fascist talk from the Left. And before Seattle or anyone corrects me, I know fascism has historically been associated with right wingers but this type of authoritarian arrogant tone is fascist to me.
Asians are fairly reliable Democrats. However, it's hard to imagine that holding long term, because they undermine so many Leftist premises and assumptions just by existing. It really depends on how the GOP frames itself.
The association of fascism with the political Right is part of the so-called called "political spectrum," which is a construct of European politics and has never been a very good fit for American politics, because it doesn't leave a clear place for libertarianism or limited government. It makes more sense in Europe, where it's mostly assumed that government will be big and powerful. Even over here, the more libertarian parties don't fit it very well.
Mussolini? Further to Mr. Deez' point, if you put Communism all the way to the Left I'd put Fascism (just a term) all the way to the right. I would define that kind of fascism as an oligarchy or total corporate control of the government. Communism is Communism. Both are so far to the extreme that they meet at the same point; totalitarianism.
Deez had a great post breaking this down awhile back. Far right wing is less centralized control over property/the means of production. Far left wing is complete state control over the property/the means of production. People dismiss Karl Marx's writing because his solutions to economics and government were absolutely terrible and a complete disaster. However, his analysis of class struggle, society, economics, government were actually spot on. Like I said, his recommendations were just absolutely the worst. In fairness to him, he envisioned a democratic communist state, but in practice that never is the case. In practice, most of his solutions do not work with human nature. Anyway, I view the marxist focus on control of the means of production as the best way to analyze what are right and left wing governments. Fascism is not total corporate control of the government. I am honestly not sure what kind of government that would be. Maybe what we have in the US today? In Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain and Saddam's Iraq, the ruling parties, the military and the strongmen were calling the shots, not the corporations. National socialism perfectly describes fascism as it is an extremely nationalistic socialism. National socialism is a form totalitarian, militaristic socialism with some private property rights. The means of production are partially controlled by the government. The corporations existed and had some private property rights, but the government could come in and direct their production. See the nazi party/hitler directing manufacturing and automobiles. The government could also confiscate your property pretty easily if you were deemed undesirable or a traitor. Fascism also has an all powerful, centralized government. Nazi Germany, for example, did away with the German federal states and turned them into centrally managed districts. Fascism, like communism, also claims to be pro workers/pro worker rights. The reason fascists and communists hate each other so much is that they both see each other as the competition to be the "true banner" of socialism and the "true saviors of the working class." Both hate what they consider the decadence of western capitalism. I think we can all agree that democratic socialism like in Europe today is the best form socialism and produces the greatest worker rights IF you are going to choose a form of socialism for your government. Deez is correct for Europe, where everything is to the left, there is only big government/socialism. Communism is to the left and fascism is, in a way, right wing socialism for Europe. I would argue our current US government is ultimately (in general) centrist or a far right wing democratic socialism. Far right wing in general would be anarchy. Moving to the left in the right wing spectrum from anarchy would be the feudal system whether monarchy or feudalist republic (the richest man who owns all the land sets the rules aka the King. His vassals, the next richest people, each wield significant power over their domains). Further left would be a libertarian, federalist society (the US 1776-1865 and the Confederate States of America). Then further left would be the US 1865-1930s (the 14th amendment centralized power and limited states' rights (not talking about slavery, but actual sovereignty of the states)) until you get back to the center with the US 1930s to present. I personally want something to the right of what we have today, but not quite as right as the US 1865-1930s. I think in some areas we could use less regulation and more local control/personal freedom. In other areas, the realities of modern economies demand some central control like having a central bank (the Fed) or anti-trust law. Social issues are generally irrelevant as any form of government can take any stance on social issues. For example, both the US prior to 1865 and the Soviet Union outlawed homosexual relations. Racism is irrelevant in left/right as any form of government could be racist and nearly all, if not all, forms of governments in history have had at least some racist policies. Slavery is also neither left nor right. If they are privately owned slaves (most slavery in history), then it would be right wing slavery as it would be a private property right. If they are publicly owned slaves (soviet gulags, nazi work camps, china today aka the people that make our cheap products and no one minds because they are chinese and out of sight) that would be left wing slavery. Strangely enough, I would argue that China has moved right from communism to fascism. It is now a national socialist state with some private property rights and corporations. It also uses public slave labor, a trait similar to many fascist states. Russia is left of center, semi-fascist but still semi-democratic. Russia might be a new form of government. Is there such a thing as a mafia/criminal run state? Maybe it should be called "loose, informal fascism"? Anyway, that's how I would break it down. Feel free to disagree and comment.
That is what I said. It is not in general. It is only considered a “ring wing socialism” in Europe where they choose amongst different forms of left wing socialisms. From the far left, it appears “right wing” as it has far less emphasis on equality than other forms of socialism. From the system we have in america, it is clearly “left wing.”
You and Phil are both correct. The conclusion we should all reach is that the political spectrum is stupid when applied to American politics and somewhat stupid when applied to anyone's politics. What we should have instead is more of a "liberty index" based on the degree to which one wants the government to regulate society - economically, culturally, socially, etc. That would make a lot more sense, because fascism and communism may have some differences, but they're both totalitarian. It makes little sense to pretend they're opposites.
Every time I think I'm judging millennials unfairly, I read something like this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...millionaires-someday-according-new-study.html More than half of Millennials expect to be millionaires someday, according to a new study New study finds that 53% of Millennials believe they will one day be millionaires Despite that, 25% say they'll never marry and 30% plan on never having children Nearly 1-in-5 report that they they still rely on their parents for financial support They expect to retire at 56, though won't start saving for retirement until age 36
Oh to be young and dream. I'm not sure we should trample on their dreams so early. Being a "millionaire" today isn't the same as it used to be. Buy a house in the right market and BOOM you're a "millionaire". I bought 2 properties in the Seattle area in 2003 and 2005. If Zillow is a gauge I could sell them and walk away with >$1M in equity (pre-Capital Gains tax).
