-
Originally Posted by
ShotgunDawg
Uh yeah. If a bunch of different teams won titles there would be no need for a rule.
What’s your point?
My point is that's BS. Other teams can win titles too. Other than Bama having 2 of the Top 5 coaches of all time, how many did they win?
You can't legislate against that.
That's communism, basically.
Not only did Mississippi State embarrass LSU on this night. Davis Wade Stadium wrecked Tiger Stadium in music choice, atmosphere and, most of all, volume.
When I'm 80 and deaf, it's not going to be all those Springsteen concerts or Queen at Municipal Auditorium in New Orleans on Halloween Night in 1978, it will be this game...............Glen Guilbeau--Sherveport Times
-
Originally Posted by
Spiderman
My point is that's BS. Other teams can win titles too. Other than Bama having 2 of the Top 5 coaches of all time, how many did they win?
You can't legislate against that.
That's communism, basically.
Communism? Wealth redistribution? I think I read about this stuff somewhere.... IIRC, it didn't work so great...
MDL, please save us from the Red Menace...
"It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."
No.
Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17
-
Originally Posted by
Spiderman
My point is that's BS. Other teams can win titles too. Other than Bama having 2 of the Top 5 coaches of all time, how many did they win?
You can't legislate against that.
That's communism, basically.
What?s communist about allowing players that don?t play to transfer without penalty?
I don?t understand your stance. Seems like a win/win
-
Originally Posted by
ShotgunDawg
What?s communist about allowing players that don?t play to transfer without penalty?
I don?t understand your stance. Seems like a win/win
it was (mostly) a joke about "redistribution"...
The whole idea of the governmental philosophy of Communism/Socialism is to take from those that "have" and give to those that "have not" in hopes of "leveling the playing field"...
What many don't understand is that the top echelon of "haves" won't be affected regardless of philosophy...
The more I've thought about your transfer idea, the more I like it... Bammer's composite talent would improve...
"It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."
No.
Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17
-
Originally Posted by
TUSK
it was (mostly) a joke about "redistribution"...
The whole idea of the governmental philosophy of Communism/Socialism is to take from those that "have" and give to those that "have not" in hopes of "leveling the playing field"...
What many don't understand is that the top echelon of "haves" won't be affected regardless of philosophy...
The more I've thought about your transfer idea, the more I like it... Bammer's composite talent would improve...
The haves will end up with more under a more socialist economy. The difference is that by taking a little more from the haves and giving it to the have nots, the have nots now have more $$ to spend on the goods and services from the haves, which drives up demand, which creates jobs to meet that demand. A trickle up economy is far more sustainable and driven by demand. Trickle down makes no sense because if there’s no demand, no amount of tax cuts are going to grow jobs. Sure, the money ends up in the same hands, but we at least have an economy churning with more people with more disposable income to buy shit, whereas trickle down is proven to stagnate a lot of $$ at the top of the economy while drying up demand at the bottom, which leads to jobs cuts (no good businessman is gonna keep unnecessary employees on the books because they got a tax cut).
So basically I’m failing to see how this all relates to CFB.
-
Originally Posted by
dawgs
The haves will end up with more under a more socialist economy. The difference is that by taking a little more from the haves and giving it to the have nots, the have nots now have more $$ to spend on the goods and services from the haves, which drives up demand, which creates jobs to meet that demand. A trickle up economy is far more sustainable and driven by demand. Trickle down makes no sense because if there’s no demand, no amount of tax cuts are going to grow jobs. Sure, the money ends up in the same hands, but we at least have an economy churning with more people with more disposable income to buy shit, whereas trickle down is proven to stagnate a lot of $$ at the top of the economy while drying up demand at the bottom, which leads to jobs cuts (no good businessman is gonna keep unnecessary employees on the books because they got a tax cut).
So basically I’m failing to see how this all relates to CFB.
Ya oughta re-post this on the Poly Board... I think you'd enjoy it there*...
"It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."
No.
Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.
Reply With Quote