CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Mountainman wrote:“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....” - Winston Churchill

“........they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

I am hopeful that the American people see through the current political strategy of those seeking to label others, who happen to disagree, as they strive to gain favor while employing identity politics.

One might ask, just why would ESPN even consider the mix of sports and politics??? Without knowing, my best guess would be that since political parties and campaigns are awash with dollars and ESPN is a for profit entity, both see a potential opportunity to gain...... but, there is a risk where both would lose.

ESPN is owned by ABC and Disney. This isn't the same Disney we grew up with it is something different.

Mountainman wrote:
One might ask, just why would ESPN even consider the mix of sports and politics??? Without knowing, my best guess would be that since political parties and campaigns are awash with dollars and ESPN is a for profit entity, both see a potential opportunity to gain...... but, there is a risk where both would lose.

I agree. Too many companies are wading into the political arena. And sadly I think it has a lot to do with the leadership who feel that social justice will win them customers.....It won't.

Delta is EXTREMELY guilty of this, and I have considered moving to another airline. But alas I live in Atlanta and multi-stop trips don't suit me in my job.

There are very few social problems that get resolved by politics. Generally, political solutions to social issues make the issue worse. More often than not in today's world, if you define the anti-christ as someone or something that creates a problem, then solves the problem they created, the masses rally around that entity, singing the omnipotent attributes of the "anti-christ" and they then dump every issue imaginable on that entity to solve the problem; governments fit that definition.

I believe in a strong government limited to defined areas of responsibility. The Constitution is a good place to start. Common Sense* fills in areas that were not anticipated years ago.

*This item is out of stock and there is not a back in stock date in the foreseeable future.

donovan wrote:There are very few social problems that get resolved by politics. Generally, political solutions to social issues make the issue worse. More often than not in today's world, if you define the anti-christ as someone or something that creates a problem, then solves the problem they created, the masses rally around that entity, singing the omnipotent attributes of the "anti-christ" and they then dump every issue imaginable on that entity to solve the problem; governments fit that definition.

I believe in a strong government limited to defined areas of responsibility. The Constitution is a good place to start. Common Sense* fills in areas that were not anticipated years ago.

*This item is out of stock and there is not a back in stock date in the foreseeable future.

Love it!

donovan wrote:There are very few social problems that get resolved by politics. Generally, political solutions to social issues make the issue worse. More often than not in today's world, if you define the anti-christ as someone or something that creates a problem, then solves the problem they created, the masses rally around that entity, singing the omnipotent attributes of the "anti-christ" and they then dump every issue imaginable on that entity to solve the problem; governments fit that definition.

I believe in a strong government limited to defined areas of responsibility. The Constitution is a good place to start. Common Sense* fills in areas that were not anticipated years ago.

*This item is out of stock and there is not a back in stock date in the foreseeable future.

The constitution is absolutely a good place to start. I'm not sure that some people believe the constitution extends past the first amendment and I'm not sure they understand what that means either.

Derek wrote:Scholarly thoughts from both of you.

It's divisiveness that is tearing the country apart, and I would argue is 'intentional'.

You lose the importance of the Strong Independent Individual to the Identity of a Special Interest Group, who really does not care about any of the Individuals within it.

Very true. The folks are just used to advance an agenda, and discarded if needed.

See espn's promotion of Boise State, and any other non-BCS conference undefeated team, from pre-playoff era to the current model.

They used the political approach of class politics to drive the viewer perspective. Now, they champion the elite money class programs.

.
.
.

Derek wrote:

donovan wrote:There are very few social problems that get resolved by politics. Generally, political solutions to social issues make the issue worse. More often than not in today's world, if you define the anti-christ as someone or something that creates a problem, then solves the problem they created, the masses rally around that entity, singing the omnipotent attributes of the "anti-christ" and they then dump every issue imaginable on that entity to solve the problem; governments fit that definition.

I believe in a strong government limited to defined areas of responsibility. The Constitution is a good place to start. Common Sense* fills in areas that were not anticipated years ago.

*This item is out of stock and there is not a back in stock date in the foreseeable future.

Love it!

If you Love that, then you'll Love this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOOsotu5JJE

You can only drive the bus so far down the road ... once the road ends, you either crash going forward, or you turn around and drive back into traffic.

Right now, the Democrat Party has driven the bus so far, that they are U-Turning & Running each other over.

.
.
.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes...

It is not ESPN's fault that the .west coast isn't as football crazy as the midwest, east and south. And has had relatively poor products of late.

It is not ESPN's fault that some flyover states are not densely populated and have fewer eyeballs watching sports.

A company makes account of customers....maybe less salt water fishing tackle advertised in Utah or Kansas and more in Florida.

Why...just why...would ESPN go out of their way to promote Boise State? They don't go out of their way to promote FSU or Georgia or Wisconsin.

It really is an extension of the "they hate us" disease prevalent in football fans.

Oh why..why..doesn't ESPN promote North Carolina's Women's Soccer....holder of 22 national championships? Why do they seem to promote UConn Women's basketball far more?

The answer my friends ain't blowin' in the wind....they hate us.

billybud wrote:Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes...

Too bad a lot of our country doesn't understand this, because it is absolutely true. No matter how many laws the government makes I'm not out running Deon Sanders, I'm not out hitting Pete Rose, I won't have Steph Curry's jump shot. Some people are better at some things than other people. It is true in almost everything. All men may be created equal, but that doesn't mean that all men are equally talented at everything. I wish we would except that and focus on helping the individual excel at make the most of his/her individual talents. Making the focus on groups is an exercise in futility.

...

And they finally get it:
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/dan-le-bat ... 31990.html

As much as I hat Yahoo!'s anti-conservative tabloid coverage of all things relevant; I do appreciate reading this on their website.

Now, if people would take aim at the fascist news commentary from Yahoo! we might get some push back, and these lunatics may finally have to temper their insanity.

.
.
.