NorthWesternBill Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 The question I think you asked was whether her words to us bystanders was merely a fun idle musing or a serious expression of interest. My sense is that it was merely an idle musing because she has shown all signs of ... ...I simply do not see Condi furthering the Tags socialistic collective approach that has brought so much wealth to the NFL team owners unless she is willing to do an about face on the individualistic free market mantra of the current Adminisitration's ideology. 637252[/snapback] My question really focused on her ability to perform in this position and/ if this would cause ripples to change other ideas, ( the common female opinion of football, affirmative action etc.. it's like one of the first post's) One thing is for sure and that is your knowledge and/ OR expierience with economics. I am able to write programs in java, but i am not able to argue with you on this level regarding bush's econ outlook. I Have to just re- iterate, this is football, not a government. A private Franchise or chain of such need not apply to everyday democratic economic ideology. I could be wrong, but it just seems like apples and oranges to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30dive Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Folks.......STOP THIS!!!!!! The thread is about an idea for the next commish! Condi Rice said a number of years ago that it would be her dream job. Put your damn politics aside...You all would be suprised at the poilitics of your favorite players, owners etc. Who cares about the politics of the commish, the question is can the person do the job? For my money Condi would be great and as I said earlier so would Bill Clinton, assuming the former POTUS would be interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valle7878 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 There is no way Rice should be NFL Commissioner, she can't even do the job she has now. What says shes a hard worker. GO DEMOCRATS!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 GO DEMOCRATS!!!!!!! 637683[/snapback] They've been going since 1994. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Right....the war in Iraq is enough for me. Thanks but no thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I can pretty well see why there is so little intelligent participation on PPP, especially from liberal democrats. Incapable of rational conversation because they squeezed in a soundbite or two from CNN in between MTV and 24, and are now smart on the subject. Probably time to close this thread, mods. 637476[/snapback] Right...you clowns ban everyone who disagrees with you (I see Mickey is now banned) and then talk about how moronic the conversation on PPP is. It is so bad you clowns put these things on the other boards! I remember being roundly chastised because I said I doubted there would be wmd's in Iraq (there weren't). Ridiculed when I said the war might cost 100 billion (450 billion and counting.) and banned when I said the death toll might go over 3000 (a very very real possibility) I was wrong about predicting a civil war after we left though...seems to be going on with us there~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Right...you clowns ban everyone who disagrees with you (I see Mickey is now banned) and then talk about how moronic the conversation on PPP is. It is so bad you clowns put these things on the other boards! I remember being roundly chastised because I said I doubted there would be wmd's in Iraq (there weren't). Ridiculed when I said the war might cost 100 billion (450 billion and counting.) and banned when I said the death toll might go over 3000 (a very very real possibility) I was wrong about predicting a civil war after we left though...seems to be going on with us there~ 637733[/snapback] I didn't ban anyone. I'm not a mod. And pointing your old, fat kentucky fried chicken greased finger to say I did is dumb, Tenny. Which, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 So, if it's more than 2,000 words it then doesn't become a political statement? FWIW, Dr. Rice isn't involved with economic policy, not in her job description, hasn't ever been, and she doesn't deal with it now. If you don't like the Bush Admin's economic policy, just say that and be done with it. So, to sum up both your posts, Condoleeza Rice would make a bad commish because you don't like Bush's domestic policies. 637444[/snapback] Actually, you seem to be reading a lot into what my opinions are about Bush economic policies from a post that discussed and presented a bit about these economic issues which may well be related to whether Rice becomes or how good of a commish she would be. However, you are reading and guessing alot about my economic views from this post as the post did not even come close to trying to state my economic views. In general, I do not know whether Rice would be a good commish or not, but the post basically makes a case that she would only likely be a good NFL Commish if she did not apply much of the ideological stance and direction shetook either as an academic or as a Administration appointee. The two hallmarks I take from my far less than complete understanding of her academic writings and approach is that she was a top level scholar about the Soviet Union and in general found its communistic economic approach and also many European socialist approaches to economics lacking. I agree with her completely about the failings of communist economics because IMHO they cannot operate without a totalitarian anti-democratic approach I dislike. But in general I find European socialistic economic approaches inefficient for maxzimizing financial gain, they are fairly consistent with democracy and though their social welfare commitment is economically inefficient it has a lot to say for it in terms of producing a kind and gentle state. As far as her US government role statements, I think her endorsement of capitalistic free markets has increased and intensified which is quite understandable given she is a politico now rather than an academic. Her statements are totally consistent with what our country has chosen electorally twice in giving the Presidency to Senor Jorge Bush. So I have no problem with her doing the work she was hired to do in this case, though I do not think that the economic foreign policy dicta of the current Admin though simple and straighforward do not always fit a very complex world. The line in your post that she does isn't involved in economic policy is naive at best. Foregin policy is all about economic policy big time. You must asee this even if it is convenient for your argument to contend these two are separate items, On the other hand, NFL economics are all about collective and socialistic practices. The team ownerss and the player workers are partners who have joined together to restrain trade of individual athletes. I am not contending thatRice would without a doubt be a bad commish. I am only saying that she would be a commish advocating taking the economics of the NFL in a totally different direction that one that has brought almost 20 years of labor stability and more money to team owners and players than ever before. She likely only would become commish and only be a good one if she abandoned the economic approaches she built her academic work and governmental work around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 My question really focused on her ability to perform in this position and/ if this would cause ripples to change other ideas, ( the common female opinion of football, affirmative action etc.. it's like one of the first post's) One thing is for sure and that is your knowledge and/ OR expierience with economics. I am able to write programs in java, but i am not able to argue with you on this level regarding bush's econ outlook. I Have to just re- iterate, this is football, not a government. A private Franchise or chain of such need not apply to everyday democratic economic ideology. I could be wrong, but it just seems like apples and oranges to me. 637653[/snapback] Actually I think we agree on a fundamental point. This is football and not a government (and not an academic institution which is where she made her rep to get the government gig). If Condi actually embraced this job as a fan she MIGHT be a good commish. All I am saying though is that if she applied the same economic approaches she endorsed both in her scholarly writing and her state Dept work to the NFL it likely would be a disaster. The question of whether she could become or would be a good NFL commish would in my mind be greatly determined by how much she ran away from and did a 180 on her previous economic views gear toward promoting the individual and instead worked to support the collective by adopting the NFL's socialistic economic ways which have been so good for the game the last 20 years. This issues are far afield and seemingly silly hoo-haa to us fans, but it was an econimic dispute which almost just brought a workstoppage to the NFL and there wou;d be no football. This is ecomic issue is essential to the game and it is the major part of the Commish's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I didn't ban anyone. I'm not a mod. And pointing your old, fat kentucky fried chicken greased finger to say I did is dumb, Tenny. Which, you know. 637755[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Actually the You is the entire group of right wing loonies at the board, not any one in particular. I have fat greasy fingers...but from wonderful chicken barbecue of Tennessee! Not Kentucky fried...tsk tsk. Condoleeza Rice for Commissioner....geez, we'll have Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld as our next GM and Coach if we let you guys have your way!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Actually, you seem to be reading a lot into what my opinions are about Bush economic policies from a post that discussed and presented a bit about these economic issues which may well be related to whether Rice becomes or how good of a commish she would be. However, you are reading and guessing alot about my economic views from this post as the post did not even come close to trying to state my economic views. In general, I do not know whether Rice would be a good commish or not, but the post basically makes a case that she would only likely be a good NFL Commish if she did not apply much of the ideological stance and direction shetook either as an academic or as a Administration appointee. The two hallmarks I take from my far less than complete understanding of her academic writings and approach is that she was a top level scholar about the Soviet Union and in general found its communistic economic approach and also many European socialist approaches to economics lacking. I agree with her completely about the failings of communist economics because IMHO they cannot operate without a totalitarian anti-democratic approach I dislike. But in general I find European socialistic economic approaches inefficient for maxzimizing financial gain, they are fairly consistent with democracy and though their social welfare commitment is economically inefficient it has a lot to say for it in terms of producing a kind and gentle state. As far as her US government role statements, I think her endorsement of capitalistic free markets has increased and intensified which is quite understandable given she is a politico now rather than an academic. Her statements are totally consistent with what our country has chosen electorally twice in giving the Presidency to Senor Jorge Bush. So I have no problem with her doing the work she was hired to do in this case, though I do not think that the economic foreign policy dicta of the current Admin though simple and straighforward do not always fit a very complex world. The line in your post that she does isn't involved in economic policy is naive at best. Foregin policy is all about economic policy big time. You must asee this even if it is convenient for your argument to contend these two are separate items, On the other hand, NFL economics are all about collective and socialistic practices. The team ownerss and the player workers are partners who have joined together to restrain trade of individual athletes. I am not contending thatRice would without a doubt be a bad commish. I am only saying that she would be a commish advocating taking the economics of the NFL in a totally different direction that one that has brought almost 20 years of labor stability and more money to team owners and players than ever before. She likely only would become commish and only be a good one if she abandoned the economic approaches she built her academic work and governmental work around. 637820[/snapback] That actually makes more sense. Sort of. I don't see it as an issue as foreign policy related economic initiatives, especially when creating or trying to create transformational systems in a new government are pragmatic more than ideological. Along with that, policy initiatives involving economics have to be tailored to fit the systems of the government or region involved. I actually see that as an asset - not a liability. Free market ideology is pressed by this administration where possible as it is their policy, it's also not a stand alone. Their key thought (right or wrong) is the promotion of democracy and individual rights. A socialist or collective economic system, as you pointed out is somewhat antithetical to that. Plus, I personally think that Dr. Rice is just plain smart enough not to rock the boat there. The CBA that the league is looking at 4 years hence is going to be a tweak, not a major revision. As some of us have said, she's been a huge fan of the game for many years (has actually had good things to say about the Bills, somewhat of a fan). Doubt she'd do anything to ruin the game. Another thing I think you could see from her is an eye on the fans. Trying to direct things that keep the fan in mind, as well as the owners and players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Actually the You is the entire group of right wing loonies at the board, not any one in particular. I have fat greasy fingers...but from wonderful chicken barbecue of Tennessee! Not Kentucky fried...tsk tsk. Condoleeza Rice for Commissioner....geez, we'll have Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld as our next GM and Coach if we let you guys have your way!!! 637838[/snapback] I did think that a nice touch, didn't you Ed? I know you laughed when you read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Laugh my ass! I spent the last four days in Albany and ate much more than I should. I have to get my fat greasy fingers and my fat ass over to the gym in about a half an hour and do an appropriate amount of exercise. Given what I ate, I expect that would be 10 to twelve hours on the treadmill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Such an ironic,but amusing comment from one who carries a misguided,and irrational opinion himself.Maybe if you stopped being a tool for Rush,and Hannity you could carry on a rational conversation about this b u l l s h i t war,and criminal Administration.....I won't hold my breath......... 638438[/snapback] Why does he have to be a tool for Rush, or Hannity. I myself am a Libertarian and do not like the Republicans or Democrats (they both are trying to take your personal liberties, its just a matter of what rights you want to give up). But because someone listens to Fox that makes him a tool. I am sure that not everyone that does not enjoy CNN is a tool, everyone has an opinion on how to best run things. But if someone has tastes differing then yours hes a tool, he is not allowed to get ideas and come to an opinion on his own, because he enjoys said programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valle7878 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 WE ALL NEED TO BUY DICK CHANEY HUNTING MASKS AND WEAR THEM AGAINST HIM BOTH BUSH AND CHANEY MUST BE THE WORST TRIO IN HISTORY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 BOTH BUSH AND CHANEY MUST BE THE WORST TRIO IN HISTORY. 638479[/snapback] While I am not saying I am pro Bush--trio means three Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valle7878 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 BUSH AND DICK CHANEY MUST GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Such an ironic,but amusing comment from one who carries a misguided,and irrational opinion himself.Maybe if you stopped being a tool for Rush,and Hannity you could carry on a rational conversation about this b u l l s h i t war,and criminal Administration.....I won't hold my breath......... 638438[/snapback] I watch neither Rush, nor FOX and have had several hundred rational conversations about the administration and the war, along with other things. Many of them not the least bit complimentary to either. I've never seen you try to enter one. I have though, along with others been in a position the last few years to shed some light on some issues from the perspective of being close to them professionally and have tried to point out what is probably bull sh-- and what is not when some media thing gets talked about. Too bad you didn't hold your breath. You probably look quite lovely in purple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I watch neither Rush, nor FOX and have had several hundred rational conversations about the administration and the war, along with other things. Many of them not the least bit complimentary to either. I've never seen you try to enter one. I have though, along with others been in a position the last few years to shed some light on some issues from the perspective of being close to them professionally and have tried to point out what is probably bull sh-- and what is not when some media thing gets talked about. Too bad you didn't hold your breath. You probably look quite lovely in purple. 638631[/snapback] Don't be trying to enter one of those PPP conversations. They ban your hienie if you don't agree with them! Anyway...if Condoleeza became commissh...and we appointed Bush GM and Cheney Coach...Rumsfeld as offensive co-ordinator....would the Dubai Port folk be handling parking? And I assume Halliburton would get the no-bid concessions contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts