GG Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Key concept that Maher and Buftex miss. Like I said...I'll forgive Maher, as he's trying to be funny. It's like a daily remedial economics class here.
Gene Frenkle Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I'm liberal: I love this and think it is funny! I'm conservative: I hate this and think it is not funny! I'm DC Tom: I think this is stupid.
Doc Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I'm liberal: I love this and think it is funny! I'm conservative: I hate this and think it is not funny! I'm DC Tom: I think this is stupid. That pretty much sums up the various viewpoints WRT the funniness of the clip. I'm an independent and though it was funny at parts. But regardless of your political affiliation, the analogy was completely wrong, and Maher is a hypocrite because he doesn't ascribe to it.
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I'm liberal: I love this and think it is funny! I'm conservative: I hate this and think it is not funny! I'm DC Tom: I think this is stupid. I would have found it funny had it been delivered by somebody who was actually funny, however...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 This is moronic. What a surprise that this comparison is made by Maher, a moron, and co-opted by Buftex, another moron. The "business" of football? In real business, we don't plan to keep meeting our competitors every week this year, next year, every year. In real business, we want to crush them now, and never see them again. Football's "business" is about endless competition, with no real winner or loser as defined in real business. In football, not only do you want to see your competitors again, YOUR entire success is predicated on seeing them again. In fact, the only reason you exist at all, is because of your competitors. If football was real business, the Patriots and the Jets would have been gone by 1994. Only a moron doesn't see the difference. But, then again, we are talking about Buftex here, aren't we. Socialism may be good for Football, but Football is not real business or real life. Socialism, as overwhelmingly evidenced by history, economics, and results, when applied to the real world...is patently retarded.
Buftex Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) This is moronic. What a surprise that this comparison is made by Maher, a moron, and co-opted by Buftex, another moron. The "business" of football? In real business, we don't plan to keep meeting our competitors every week this year, next year, every year. In real business, we want to crush them now, and never see them again. Football's "business" is about endless competition, with no real winner or loser as defined in real business. In football, not only do you want to see your competitors again, YOUR entire success is predicated on seeing them again. In fact, the only reason you exist at all, is because of your competitors. If football was real business, the Patriots and the Jets would have been gone by 1994. Only a moron doesn't see the difference. But, then again, we are talking about Buftex here, aren't we. Socialism may be good for Football, but Football is not real business or real life. Socialism, as overwhelmingly evidenced by history, economics, and results, when applied to the real world...is patently retarded. I guess the point that I got from Maher, which nobody else seems to have taken from it, the NFL, as one entity, kicks MLB's ass, because, the way it is run. The business of football, or the business model adopted by the NFL(whatever you want to call it), there is an attempt, by the NFL owners to keep the competitive nature of the leauge high (divinding revenue from tv contracts, the team that finishes with the worst record, theoretically gets an easier schedule, and a higher pick in the draft, salary cap, etc etc)so that there is a national interest in the game. If the individual owner takes advantage of all the benefits that the business model allows (and not all do), there is no reason that a Buffalo, Green Bay or Jacksonville can't compete with teams from New York, or Boston, year after year. In other words, keeping all teams in the competitive mix is healthier for the sport as a business entity. Baseball, because of its' competitive imbalance as a league, has seen interest fall off dramatically on a national level. The NFL continues to rake in huge dollars, and huge television ratings. Edited January 31, 2011 by Buftex
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I guess the point that I got from Maher, which nobody else seems to have taken from it, the NFL, as one entity, kicks MLB's ass, because, the way it is run. The business of football, or the business model adopted by the NFL(whatever you want to call it), there is an attempt, by the NFL owners to keep the competitive nature of the leauge high (divinding revenue from tv contracts, the team that finishes with the worst record, theoretically gets an easier schedule, and a higher pick in the draft, salary cap, etc etc)so that there is a national interest in the game. If the individual owner takes advantage of all the benefits that the business model allows (and not all do), there is no reason that a Buffalo, Green Bay or Jacksonville can't compete with teams from New York, or Boston, year after year. In other words, keeping all teams in the competitive mix is healthier for the sport as a business entity. Baseball, because of its' competitive imbalance as a league, has seen interest fall off dramatically on a national level. The NFL continues to rake in huge dollars, and huge television ratings. So the NFL follows is that it promotes competition based on each individual franchise's ability to take advantage of the overall competetive environment? In other words...what you got from Maher's analysis of the "socialist" model the NFL follows was a definition of "capitalism".
Chef Jim Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I guess the point that I got from Maher, which nobody else seems to have taken from it, the NFL, as one entity, kicks MLB's ass, because, the way it is run. The business of football, or the business model adopted by the NFL(whatever you want to call it), there is an attempt, by the NFL owners to keep the competitive nature of the leauge high (divinding revenue from tv contracts, the team that finishes with the worst record, theoretically gets an easier schedule, and a higher pick in the draft, salary cap, etc etc)so that there is a national interest in the game. If the individual owner takes advantage of all the benefits that the business model allows (and not all do), there is no reason that a Buffalo, Green Bay or Jacksonville can't compete with teams from New York, or Boston, year after year. In other words, keeping all teams in the competitive mix is healthier for the sport as a business entity. Baseball, because of its' competitive imbalance as a league, has seen interest fall off dramatically on a national level. The NFL continues to rake in huge dollars, and huge television ratings. The reason none of us got that point from Maher was because that's not the point we was trying to put across. He was trying to make political humor at the expense of Republicans (yeah, that's hard to do) and he fell flat on his face.
Buftex Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) So the NFL follows is that it promotes competition based on each individual franchise's ability to take advantage of the overall competetive environment? In other words...what you got from Maher's analysis of the "socialist" model the NFL follows was a definition of "capitalism". Not what I said. If the NFL was like major league baseball, guys like Ralph Wilson and Al Davis would have been put out of business decades ago. They rely on the money from the television contract, almost exclusively, to field a team year after year...baseball doesn't create the same type of competitive enviorment for their franchises. Their product suffers from it, and so to, does the interest in baseball. Edited January 31, 2011 by Buftex
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Not what I said. If the NFL was like major league baseball, guys like Ralph Wilson and Al Davis would have been put out of business decades ago. They rely on the money from the television contract, almost exclusively, to field a team year after year... So you in no way derived from Maher's "The NFL is socialist" stupidity that the NFL is socialist? But instead, you wanted to strictly limit your discussion of football vs. baseball, as compared by a political pundit and posted by you on a politics board, to the sports themselves? Wouldn't it be easier and less embarrassing for you to simply say "I'm sorry, I'm an idiot. I was wrong."?
Buftex Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) So you in no way derived from Maher's "The NFL is socialist" stupidity that the NFL is socialist? But instead, you wanted to strictly limit your discussion of football vs. baseball, as compared by a political pundit and posted by you on a politics board, to the sports themselves? Wouldn't it be easier and less embarrassing for you to simply say "I'm sorry, I'm an idiot. I was wrong."? If it makes you feel better...I didn't realize ieatcrayonz had so many different accounts... Edited January 31, 2011 by Buftex
Peace Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I guess the point that I got from Maher, which nobody else seems to have taken from it, the NFL, as one entity, kicks MLB's ass, because, the way it is run. The business of football, or the business model adopted by the NFL(whatever you want to call it), there is an attempt, by the NFL owners to keep the competitive nature of the leauge high (divinding revenue from tv contracts, the team that finishes with the worst record, theoretically gets an easier schedule, and a higher pick in the draft, salary cap, etc etc)so that there is a national interest in the game. If the individual owner takes advantage of all the benefits that the business model allows (and not all do), there is no reason that a Buffalo, Green Bay or Jacksonville can't compete with teams from New York, or Boston, year after year. In other words, keeping all teams in the competitive mix is healthier for the sport as a business entity. Baseball, because of its' competitive imbalance as a league, has seen interest fall off dramatically on a national level. The NFL continues to rake in huge dollars, and huge television ratings. Yeah, the popularity gap couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the game of baseball sucks compared to football, in the opinion of anyone under age 50.
RkFast Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) I guess the point that I got from Maher, which nobody else seems to have taken from it, the NFL, as one entity, kicks MLB's ass, because, the way it is run. The business of football, or the business model adopted by the NFL(whatever you want to call it), there is an attempt, by the NFL owners to keep the competitive nature of the leauge high (divinding revenue from tv contracts, the team that finishes with the worst record, theoretically gets an easier schedule, and a higher pick in the draft, salary cap, etc etc)so that there is a national interest in the game. If the individual owner takes advantage of all the benefits that the business model allows (and not all do), there is no reason that a Buffalo, Green Bay or Jacksonville can't compete with teams from New York, or Boston, year after year. In other words, keeping all teams in the competitive mix is healthier for the sport as a business entity. Baseball, because of its' competitive imbalance as a league, has seen interest fall off dramatically on a national level. The NFL continues to rake in huge dollars, and huge television ratings. Baseball has a luxury tax to assist with competitive balance, you dummy. The Yanks pay tens of millions in luxury tax and the rest of the team like the Mets and Sox keep their salaries at the tax threshold. Also, baseball's ratings are trending low, but overall high, locally and their ticket sales are through the roof. There is not a SINGLE baseball team that is "out of the mix" due to poor revenues or a competitive inbalance. Baseball is enjoying more or less a complete renaissance recently. As popular as football? No. But HARDLY "suffering" becuase of some false competitive inbalance. Edited January 31, 2011 by RkFast
OCinBuffalo Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I guess the point that I got from Maher, which nobody else seems to have taken from it, the NFL, as one entity, kicks MLB's ass, because, the way it is run. The business of football, or the business model adopted by the NFL(whatever you want to call it), there is an attempt, by the NFL owners to keep the competitive nature of the leauge high (divinding revenue from tv contracts, the team that finishes with the worst record, theoretically gets an easier schedule, and a higher pick in the draft, salary cap, etc etc)so that there is a national interest in the game. If the individual owner takes advantage of all the benefits that the business model allows (and not all do), there is no reason that a Buffalo, Green Bay or Jacksonville can't compete with teams from New York, or Boston, year after year. In other words, keeping all teams in the competitive mix is healthier for the sport as a business entity. Baseball, because of its' competitive imbalance as a league, has seen interest fall off dramatically on a national level. The NFL continues to rake in huge dollars, and huge television ratings. Yeah. Anyone who watched the video, and has a basic sense of the subject, gets Maher's failed attempt at a point. The problem is: the point is either moot, because neither football or baseball have any bearing on the real world in terms of economic models, or, the point is irrelevant, because we already have something that enforces competition in the real world: anti-trust laws. From which, incidentally, bot football and baseball are exempted. As if we needed another reason why this comparison, and then the extrapolation, is faulty at best. In all cases, nothing supports socialism. I guess what many are trying to say is: yeah, we get the comparison, and it's valid, if you stick to baseball/football. The problems start with Maher's extrapolating that comparison straight to Olbermann-land.
Dante Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Maher, much like Obama, makes me feel ill when I watch. So I don't.
bbb Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I just did a search for something else, and saw this thread.....Since there's so much Maher talk on the GR thread, I thought I'd watch it. As usual, it wasn't funny at all. But, not only that - wouldn't this point have been a good one to make say 10 years ago when the Yanks had won 4 of 5? How does he account for the fact that since then there has not been a back to back champ and the only team to have won more than once since then are the Sox, who won it twice....In football since then, the Patriots have won 3 times, the Steelers twice. Of the 12 teams that have played in the last 6 World Series, 11 have only played in it once. The Philies are the only team to play in in twice in the last 6 years. Good timely non funny message, Bill.
Nanker Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 I guess the point that I got from Maher, which nobody else seems to have taken from it, the NFL, as one entity, kicks MLB's ass, because, the way it is run. The business of football, or the business model adopted by the NFL(whatever you want to call it), there is an attempt, by the NFL owners to keep the competitive nature of the leauge high (divinding revenue from tv contracts, the team that finishes with the worst record, theoretically gets an easier schedule, and a higher pick in the draft, salary cap, etc etc)so that there is a national interest in the game. If the individual owner takes advantage of all the benefits that the business model allows (and not all do), there is no reason that a Buffalo, Green Bay or Jacksonville can't compete with teams from New York, or Boston, year after year. In other words, keeping all teams in the competitive mix is healthier for the sport as a business entity. Baseball, because of its' competitive imbalance as a league, has seen interest fall off dramatically on a national level. The NFL continues to rake in huge dollars, and huge television ratings. Oh yeah, the NFL is kicking MLB's azz. Brilliant! What's next, you'll claim that NASCAR is a terrible business model and that land lines are better than smart phones?
bbb Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Oh yeah, the NFL is kicking MLB's azz. Brilliant! What's next, you'll claim that NASCAR is a terrible business model and that land lines are better than smart phones? Comedy is all about timing. Maher proves his lack of comedic skills by this very ill-timed bit, as you point out.
Rob's House Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) What happened to Maher anyway? I used to be a huge fan back in my teens and early twenties. Is it just me or has he become WAY more liberal and a lot less funny? Didn't he used to be a libertarian? I just don't get it. You see a lot of guys who become more conservative with age, but who turns 50 and takes a hard left turn? I think he just says what will appease his leftist crowd (the ones that turned on him post-911 then came back when their emotions receded) and help him get laid in Hollywood. Edited February 20, 2011 by Rob's House
Gene Frenkle Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 What happened to Maher anyway? I used to be a huge fan back in my teens and early twenties. Is it just me or has he become WAY more liberal and a lot less funny? Didn't he used to be a libertarian? I just don't get it. You see a lot of guys who become more conservative with age, but who turns 50 and takes a hard left turn? I think he just says what will appease his leftist crowd (the ones that turned on him post-911 then came back when their emotions receded) and help him get laid in Hollywood. Maybe you've become less liberal. Maher is nuts. He's nearly as bad as Oprah when it comes to promoting every hocus pocus alternative medicine imaginable. He's an anti-vaccination and anti-western medicine and is very vocal about all of this.
Recommended Posts