If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PennLive)   So America's moral decay should be blamed on: a) guns, b) soccer, or c) Ann Coulter   (pennlive.com) divider line 126
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

2953 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jul 2014 at 1:29 AM (9 days ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-13 05:27:43 PM
She's not the cause, but she is certainly a symptom. As is Glenn Beck. As is "reality television"--which, in fairness, got part of its start thanks to daytime TV and folks like Montel Williams and Geraldo and the rest of the circuit that discovered that people acting badly was a formula for success. As is Fox News. As is the screeching about Benghazi. As is the polarization of our politics. These aren't the reasons that we as a nation are coming to a crossroads, but they are certainly a symptom of some deep divisions. And the folks who are exploiting these fears and divisions for their own profit, and manipulating them for their own gain, they ain't helping.

As a nation, we are an egotistical lot. What happens to be important to us personally, we figure is important to everyone. If folks are screeching, then upright apes that we are, we have an innate desire to see what in the blue blazes is going on, and cheer on folks we like, and boo the folks we dislike. It's troop behavior. America has taken that social curiosity and desire to rubberneck to another level. Gossip, opinion, arguments, it's what we're good at.

The problem is, that we're seeing our politics as a spectator sport. We cheer on sides, and we give money to sides, and let them do battle for our amusement. When we do that, we let them set the agenda, and the tone, and as we tune in, we likewise give over power to sides, as opposed to demanding the agenda be set by ourselves. THAT'S the real problem we face. Politics as a spectator sport. Big Money Romney versus the plucky Chicago Community Organizer! The NRA versus the Far Out Anti-Gun Nuts! We allow real discussions to get distilled into sound bytes, and to think in terms of sides, as opposed to actual issues. If'n they's a fer it, then we's ag'in it! Even if it might actually help folks, and the problem is that we're not looking at policy as objective positions, but subjective in terms of sides, and narrative.

Coulter isn't the problem. She and those like her are symptoms. They're doing their jobs. To distill down complex issues down to pithy statements about how theirs is the ONLY sane position, when in fact, their position is pretty much just obstructionism, and looking to obfuscate, because it's convenient to have EVERY issue have a hero or villain.

But then again, look at even the little conflicts in your own household, or workplace. How many times are there clear "bad" and "good" solutions to problems? While you may disagree with one problem solving set, you can usually see what folks are trying to get at, even if you disagree. Everyone wants to solve the issue, but you differ exactly how. Sometimes, folks are so focused on the issue, that they try to micromanage it, and then others miss the point, and try to work on issues far beyond the scope of what you NEED to worry about. That's our politics. Only, blown up to a huge scale, with "office politics" writ large, and with billions of dollars riding on it, and the managing of the "sides" means that billions are on the line with every election. And when folks lose a big election, they they are looking to make everyone feel bad about that, because they know that they've lost some clients a LOT of cash, and they'd best be seen trying to turn things around to the greatest advantage again. And the public seems to forget that much of our media, aren't working to preserve "America" but the profit margins for their clients. It's not news, it's PR and managing perception.

Perception is reality is a concept that NeoCons latched onto some time ago. And then they got the brilliant idea that if they only manage perception, then facts and figures, they don't matter, in a quite willful redefinition of the concept. NeoCons themselves aren't at the moral decay of the nation though. They are likewise a symptom.

At the heart, we are. We abdicate our power, and lend it to folks who we see as "our" side, and forget, that "sides" doesn't necessarily cover each issue. We've searched for an easy way to abdicate actually understanding issues, and instead focus on sides to cheer for, and so long as folks are on the "correct" side, then they get a pass. And that political laziness has led us the place we're at now. Fox News? They're a symptom. The Koch brothers? Taking advantage of a playing field, and they are certainly looking to keep control of it, but let's not pretend that they're at fault, for the mental and political laziness which is at the heart of things.

We can point fingers at the symptoms, or we can address the actual disease, and the disease, right now, is the mental and political laziness that abounds within the electorate.
 
2014-07-13 05:39:01 PM
D) All of the above
 
2014-07-13 06:04:02 PM
Well said hubiestubert.
 
2014-07-13 06:18:09 PM
That column was a rambling mess. I should have checked out after the random slam at Sandra Fluke.
 
2014-07-13 08:50:57 PM
Not that I don't approve of blaming Ann Coulter for everything ever, but my brain shuts down the second I start hearing anyone whine about "moral decay".

Yes, grandma, kids are necking and smoking jazz cigarettes and listening to that new-fangled rock & roll music nowadays.  Deal with it.
 
2014-07-13 10:12:57 PM
d) Poorly executed Happy Fisherman Photoshoops

i253.photobucket.com

 
2014-07-13 10:17:10 PM
Ann Coulter knows how to get our attention, which is not always a good thing.

...and you proceed to write a rambling multi-paragraph article about her.
 
2014-07-13 10:17:28 PM
As much as I hate Coulter...

I feel dumber for having read that twaddle
 
2014-07-13 10:18:55 PM
I've got to hand it to her, she really figured out a way to make money hand over fist.
 
2014-07-13 10:34:48 PM
I hate the term "Moral decay", it's so ambiguous.  Intellectual decay, sure, I can understand that.  Ethical decay, absolutely I can understand that as well.  But "morals" are very subjective depending on who you talk to and what they value.  What is moral to one, is evil to another and visa versa.
 
2014-07-13 10:42:37 PM
jasonpoblete.com
D. None of the above
 
2014-07-13 11:01:43 PM
Soccer isn't the cause of it, but is the obvious metric.  The more of a "soccer country" you are, the more of a collection of losers you are.
 
2014-07-13 11:05:50 PM
Isn't this one of the fools that caused the Iraq War?
 
2014-07-13 11:10:16 PM
I don't know whether Ann Coulter is a leading cause of the moral decay in America.  I am sure, however, that brain cells die by the droves when her drivel is read or heard.
 
2014-07-14 12:20:44 AM
Not to be a buzzkill, but, before deciding which limb is responsible for the patient's grave illness and needs to be amputated, might it be worthwhile to actually see if the patient is actually ill, first?

I'll limit my comments to the US, since that's the area I know best, but.... What, exactly, are the symptoms leading us to assume the patient is in grave danger and requires immediate treatment, and isn't actually feeling much better?

Soccer is a cool sport but will never take off in the US since it isn't amenable to broadcast TV's business model. Ann Coulter is a twit, but a nation of 300+ million can afford a number of twits. Gun deaths are down, and the biggest risk is to gun owners themselves. Abortions are down, due to - IMO - both wider education of birth control and delayed sexual activity ("abstinence", even if it's only periodic)
 
2014-07-14 12:50:08 AM

hubiestubert: As is "reality television"--which, in fairness, got part of its start thanks to daytime TV and folks like Montel Williams and Geraldo and the rest of the circuit that discovered that people acting badly was a formula for success.


I believe that it actually is the fault of a writer's strike and "Cops."

While I could be making this up, I'm pretty sure that "Cops" appeared in prime time in 1989 because there was a writer's strike going on at the time and they needed material to fill the airtime, so they came up with "Cops" which didn't require any writers. Since it's still on the air you can see how successful that was. Ever since then the concept of "we don't need to pay writers for success" has stuck around.

Regardless, your point pretty much stands. I do take some issue with this bit:

hubiestubert: Perception is reality is a concept that NeoCons latched onto some time ago. And then they got the brilliant idea that if they only manage perception, then facts and figures, they don't matter, in a quite willful redefinition of the concept.


That is hardly a NeoCon maxim, it's such a fundamental part of politics that everybody does it. If enough people believe something then whatever the truth is doesn't matter, since it won't affect the voting if nobody believes it. The problem that the Conservatives have run into recently is that they forgot who their audience was. You want to fool the voters, not yourselves. Unskewing house polls so you think you're going to win by 35 points while you're really down is fooling the wrong audience, and thinking that they are the voice of the solid majority, when in reality their opinions are in the minority on pretty much everything from healthcare, minimum wage, contraception, and immigration just means that they either have to stop fooling themselves, or have to continue to believe in conspiracies to explain the aberrant reality they are faced with.
 
2014-07-14 01:35:56 AM
Wait...Sandra Fluke went to Congress to talk about the benefits of health insurance providers covering birth control.  How is she lumped in with Nikita Kruschev, Miley Cyrus, and George Zimmerman?
 
2014-07-14 01:38:44 AM
Well, that certainly took a racist twist with the "browning of America" line at the end.
 
2014-07-14 01:39:48 AM

nmrsnr: believe that it actually is the fault of a writer's strike and "Cops."

While I could be making this up, I'm pretty sure that "Cops" appeared in prime time in 1989 because there was a writer's strike going on at the time and they needed material to fill the airtime, so they came up with "Cops" which didn't require any writers. Since it's still on the air you can see how successful that was. Ever since then the concept of "we don't need to pay writers for success" has stuck around.


Well, it's the "fault" in the same way the Tesla is the "fault" of the oil embargo of 1973.

You are right that COPS appeared and flourished in 1989 because of the writer's strike, and Langley Entertainment had a few million reels of raw video footage ready to go at just the right time...and the writer's strike lasted long enough for COPS to turn a profit, thus proving that the reality-show concept was viable. However, COPS and it's Langley Productions progeny are the only genuine "reality" shows on the air (as in unscripted raw footage aired without any sweetening or narration). MSNBC's Lockup is not dissimilar as well, although it does use edited storylines (though not scripted ones) and narration.

The blame for the dreck we call "reality show television" should be laid at the feet of MTV's "The Real World" (1992) instead.
 
2014-07-14 01:43:23 AM
d) liberals
 
2014-07-14 01:46:02 AM
I'm gonna go with "b"
 
2014-07-14 01:47:08 AM
static.giantbomb.com
 
2014-07-14 01:47:56 AM
Ann Coulter is an "objectively brilliant pundit?" Fark.
 
2014-07-14 01:53:02 AM

hubiestubert: She's not the cause, but she is certainly a symptom. As is Glenn Beck. As is "reality television"--which, in fairness, got part of its start thanks to daytime TV and folks like Montel Williams and Geraldo and the rest of the circuit that discovered that people acting badly was a formula for success. As is Fox News. As is the screeching about Benghazi. As is the polarization of our politics. These aren't the reasons that we as a nation are coming to a crossroads, but they are certainly a symptom of some deep divisions. And the folks who are exploiting these fears and divisions for their own profit, and manipulating them for their own gain, they ain't helping.

As a nation, we are an egotistical lot. What happens to be important to us personally, we figure is important to everyone. If folks are screeching, then upright apes that we are, we have an innate desire to see what in the blue blazes is going on, and cheer on folks we like, and boo the folks we dislike. It's troop behavior. America has taken that social curiosity and desire to rubberneck to another level. Gossip, opinion, arguments, it's what we're good at.

The problem is, that we're seeing our politics as a spectator sport. We cheer on sides, and we give money to sides, and let them do battle for our amusement. When we do that, we let them set the agenda, and the tone, and as we tune in, we likewise give over power to sides, as opposed to demanding the agenda be set by ourselves. THAT'S the real problem we face. Politics as a spectator sport. Big Money Romney versus the plucky Chicago Community Organizer! The NRA versus the Far Out Anti-Gun Nuts! We allow real discussions to get distilled into sound bytes, and to think in terms of sides, as opposed to actual issues. If'n they's a fer it, then we's ag'in it! Even if it might actually help folks, and the problem is that we're not looking at policy as objective positions, but subjective in terms of sides, and narrative.

Coulter isn't the problem. She and those ...


So, this post was really just kind of a satirical version of the article, right? Equally vapid and rambling? The only variance was that the article took a 'both sides are bad' position while you rightly (heh) pointed out that only the right is bad, although I'm sure you consider it a problem that left can be bad too when it isn't left enough for you.

Nice job

Maybe someone will write an article talking about the possibility that the true issue with the United States today is that reasonable people have let the government be taken over by ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum.
 
2014-07-14 01:54:39 AM

hubiestubert: She's not the cause, but she is certainly a symptom. As is Glenn Beck. As is "reality television"--which, in fairness, got part of its start thanks to daytime TV and folks like Montel Williams and Geraldo and the rest of the circuit that discovered that people acting badly was a formula for success. As is Fox News. As is the screeching about Benghazi. As is the polarization of our politics. These aren't the reasons that we as a nation are coming to a crossroads, but they are certainly a symptom of some deep divisions. And the folks who are exploiting these fears and divisions for their own profit, and manipulating them for their own gain, they ain't helping.

As a nation, we are an egotistical lot. What happens to be important to us personally, we figure is important to everyone. If folks are screeching, then upright apes that we are, we have an innate desire to see what in the blue blazes is going on, and cheer on folks we like, and boo the folks we dislike. It's troop behavior. America has taken that social curiosity and desire to rubberneck to another level. Gossip, opinion, arguments, it's what we're good at.

The problem is, that we're seeing our politics as a spectator sport. We cheer on sides, and we give money to sides, and let them do battle for our amusement. When we do that, we let them set the agenda, and the tone, and as we tune in, we likewise give over power to sides, as opposed to demanding the agenda be set by ourselves. THAT'S the real problem we face. Politics as a spectator sport. Big Money Romney versus the plucky Chicago Community Organizer! The NRA versus the Far Out Anti-Gun Nuts! We allow real discussions to get distilled into sound bytes, and to think in terms of sides, as opposed to actual issues. If'n they's a fer it, then we's ag'in it! Even if it might actually help folks, and the problem is that we're not looking at policy as objective positions, but subjective in terms of sides, and narrative.

Coulter isn't the problem. She and those ...


In other words, Americans as individuals are wildly selfish and Americans in large groups are dangerous, stupid, easily distracted animals.
 
2014-07-14 01:55:21 AM

The Lone Gunman: Wait...Sandra Fluke went to Congress to talk about the benefits of health insurance providers covering birth control.  How is she lumped in with Nikita Kruschev, Miley Cyrus, and George Zimmerman?


That ground my gears as well. Truth in advertising my ass!
 
2014-07-14 01:57:39 AM

Gyrfalcon: nmrsnr: believe that it actually is the fault of a writer's strike and "Cops."

While I could be making this up, I'm pretty sure that "Cops" appeared in prime time in 1989 because there was a writer's strike going on at the time and they needed material to fill the airtime, so they came up with "Cops" which didn't require any writers. Since it's still on the air you can see how successful that was. Ever since then the concept of "we don't need to pay writers for success" has stuck around.

Well, it's the "fault" in the same way the Tesla is the "fault" of the oil embargo of 1973.

You are right that COPS appeared and flourished in 1989 because of the writer's strike, and Langley Entertainment had a few million reels of raw video footage ready to go at just the right time...and the writer's strike lasted long enough for COPS to turn a profit, thus proving that the reality-show concept was viable. However, COPS and it's Langley Productions progeny are the only genuine "reality" shows on the air (as in unscripted raw footage aired without any sweetening or narration). MSNBC's Lockup is not dissimilar as well, although it does use edited storylines (though not scripted ones) and narration.

The blame for the dreck we call "reality show television" should be laid at the feet of MTV's "The Real World" (1992) instead.


You make an important distinction about it being actual reality (even if highly edited) and "reality".  I liked it because it was actually real.  I can't stand any of these "reality" shows.

As far as Ann Coulter, I'm kind of curious if I've changed or if she's just gone extreme since the '90s when I used to see her on Politically Incorrect and think she wasn't nearly as bad as she's gotten today.

I'll have to see if I can find any old clips on the internet and see for myself.

I do remember her saying once that she was basically trolling people because it helped her sell more books.  She didn't use the word "trolling", but how she described it was an accurate definition of trolling.
 
2014-07-14 01:59:23 AM
Um, what moral decay? We seem to be close to an apex, if we could get the corporations out of politics and maybe encourage them to pay workers better instead of just adding to the billions of a small list of billionaires.
 
2014-07-14 02:07:13 AM

LordZorch: Soccer isn't the cause of it, but is the obvious metric.  The more of a "soccer country" you are, the more of a collection of losers you are.


IKR, consider that the two popes come from the two finalists in the World Cup. Proof positive that Catholicism is for losers. Patriotic Americans should be thankful that a bunch of Catholics with life tenure are not running the country.
 
2014-07-14 02:12:48 AM
Obvious tag found tied up in unlikely tag's basement
 
2014-07-14 02:40:06 AM
To me, the objectively brilliant pundit with an Ivy pedigree and Little Mermaid hair

Since when is Coulter a redhead??
 
2014-07-14 02:45:18 AM
This is a rare example of actually "begging the question." TFH assumes that America is suffering moral decay. People have been decrying America's moral decay since 1777, and they've all been full of shiat.
 
2014-07-14 02:45:59 AM
The reason football (yes, that's what it's called,deal with it) isn't popular in the US and is hated by Ann Coulter is simple. It's a sport in which you get your ass handed to you by Belgium. It slaps the silly notion of American Exceptionalism in the face. With a halibut.
 
2014-07-14 02:55:20 AM

LordZorch: Soccer isn't the cause of it, but is the obvious metric.  The more of a "soccer country" you are, the more of a collection of losers you are.


happydude45: d) liberals


www.ribbonsgalore.com
 
2014-07-14 02:56:03 AM

Zmog: The reason football (yes, that's what it's called,deal with it) isn't popular in the US and is hated by Ann Coulter is simple. It's a sport in which you get your ass handed to you by Belgium. It slaps the silly notion of American Exceptionalism in the face. With a halibut.


It also can end in a tie. Here in America WE DEMAND A WINNER, DAMMIT!
 
2014-07-14 02:56:28 AM
Yeah, two paragraphs in and we have a 'both sides' metaphor and effusive praise of Coulter.  A mangled Reagan quote, more both sides attacks, racebaiting ...and she finally admits to being a conservative.  I certainly saw that coming.

This is exactly what's wrong with the GOP.  The party of personal responsibility never takes full responsibility for their actions; for their rhetoric or invective.  Even when one of their own says something massively, massively stupid and self-defeating they curl themselves into a ball of fallacies to spread the blame around.  Instead of just coming out and admitting that Coulter is a professional troll who wears modern conservatism like a mask Ms. Flowers makes sure to chum the water with plenty of red meat for her base while pointing even a smidgen of blame towards a known GOP talking head.

What the hell does La Raza have to do with Coulter or football?  How is Sandra Fluke in any way comparable to Kruschev, Miley Cirus, or George Zimmerman?  Why even talk about abortion?

...and the funny part is that even after all that, after bending over backwards to flail at half a dozen liberal boogeymen while taking a backhanded lovetap at Coulter - the comments are eating Ms. Flowers alive for daring to speak ill about such a great conservative hero.  Haha.  Depressing.
 
2014-07-14 02:58:58 AM

Gyrfalcon: nmrsnr: believe that it actually is the fault of a writer's strike and "Cops."

While I could be making this up, I'm pretty sure that "Cops" appeared in prime time in 1989 because there was a writer's strike going on at the time and they needed material to fill the airtime, so they came up with "Cops" which didn't require any writers. Since it's still on the air you can see how successful that was. Ever since then the concept of "we don't need to pay writers for success" has stuck around.

Well, it's the "fault" in the same way the Tesla is the "fault" of the oil embargo of 1973.

You are right that COPS appeared and flourished in 1989 because of the writer's strike, and Langley Entertainment had a few million reels of raw video footage ready to go at just the right time...and the writer's strike lasted long enough for COPS to turn a profit, thus proving that the reality-show concept was viable. However, COPS and it's Langley Productions progeny are the only genuine "reality" shows on the air (as in unscripted raw footage aired without any sweetening or narration). MSNBC's Lockup is not dissimilar as well, although it does use edited storylines (though not scripted ones) and narration.

The blame for the dreck we call "reality show television" should be laid at the feet of MTV's "The Real World" (1992) instead.


Well, PBS is the one who invented the genre back in 1971 with An American Family. MTV just realized that there was an opportunity to monetize it as a trashy genre instead of high brow documentary.
 
2014-07-14 02:59:05 AM

The Lone Gunman: Wait...Sandra Fluke went to Congress to talk about the benefits of health insurance providers covering birth control.  How is she lumped in with Nikita Kruschev, Miley Cyrus, and George Zimmerman?


There's really no commonality in the list at all, frankly.  Kruschev's an actual politician, Cyrus a professional, and Zimmerman's a moron who accidentally got famous for doing something stupid.

I guess Fluke maybe vaguely matches Kruschev in the sense that she's sort of a professional politician (she's a professional activist/lobbyist to begin with and is apparently considering running for office herself), but the 'self-promotion' these people do is all different in both ultimate goal and methodology.  Zimmerman was just desperate to counter public opinion screwing him over in his court case, Cyrus literally gets a paycheck for self-promoting, etc.

And Coulter's really different from the lot to similar degree, she's seizing a preexisting political divide to sell books to stupid people, which isn't even quite like being an entertainer.

// Yes, Fluke was a professional lobbyist/activist with a vested interest in self-promotion before testifying before congress, she wasn't selected at random.
 
2014-07-14 02:59:11 AM

happydude45: d) liberals


www.cooper77.net
 
2014-07-14 03:01:25 AM
That's so meta.

/dnrtfa
 
2014-07-14 03:01:39 AM

Zmog: The reason football (yes, that's what it's called,deal with it) isn't popular in the US and is hated by Ann Coulter is simple. It's a sport in which you get your ass handed to you by Belgium. It slaps the silly notion of American Exceptionalism in the face. With a halibut.


I like soccer (or football, or futbol, or whatever the hell you want to call it). I'm a Seattle Sounders fan, albeit not a rabid one. But here's the thing - soccer will never be popular in America for two reasons. First, Americans will never embrace the beauty of a 0-0 tie. We like lots of scoring, lots of lead changes. We call baseball the "national pastime," but most Americans are bored by baseball. (I love it, personally, but that's quickly becoming the minority point of view.) We like football - real football, American football - because there's plenty of scoring and violence. More and more basketball is becoming the quintessential American sport - a sport in which a team can score 80 points and still get slaughtered. So that's one reason soccer will never capture the American imagination, but the second reason is the real deal breaker. Have you noticed that play goes on for 45+ minutes without a break? Do you realize what that means? It means 45+ minutes  without commercials! Do you honestly think the networks will participate in cutting their own revenue streams?

If soccer could win over an American audience, we would do what we've done with every other internationally popular sport - we'd pay the highest salaries by a factor of 10 or more, and we'd attract the best talent from around the globe to our teams, just as we've done with the world's best baseball and basketball players. Then we'd dominate the world at that sport, just as we've done with every other sport we really care about.

American exceptionalism is a very real thing. It's the inevitable result of being rich enough to buy whatever you want.
 
2014-07-14 03:03:09 AM

MasterAdkins: Well said hubiestubert.


HUBIESTUBERT FOR PRESIDENT!!!
 
2014-07-14 03:07:20 AM

Zmog: The reason football (yes, that's what it's called,deal with it) isn't popular in the US and is hated by Ann Coulter is simple. It's a sport in which you get your ass handed to you by Belgium. It slaps the silly notion of American Exceptionalism in the face. With a halibut.


Most Americans don't understand football anyway. The reason is the shiatty commentary and punditry.

It's because Americans aren't exceptional and the world pity's you they don't admire your ignorance.

It's like saying the Irish are exceptional because of their success in Gaelic Football or Hurling.
 
2014-07-14 03:08:51 AM
I think we've entered into Camille Paglia levels of pundit wankery here.
 
2014-07-14 03:14:43 AM

BMulligan: Zmog: The reason football (yes, that's what it's called,deal with it) isn't popular in the US and is hated by Ann Coulter is simple. It's a sport in which you get your ass handed to you by Belgium. It slaps the silly notion of American Exceptionalism in the face. With a halibut.

I like soccer (or football, or futbol, or whatever the hell you want to call it). I'm a Seattle Sounders fan, albeit not a rabid one. But here's the thing - soccer will never be popular in America for two reasons. First, Americans will never embrace the beauty of a 0-0 tie. We like lots of scoring, lots of lead changes. We call baseball the "national pastime," but most Americans are bored by baseball. (I love it, personally, but that's quickly becoming the minority point of view.) We like football - real football, American football - because there's plenty of scoring and violence. More and more basketball is becoming the quintessential American sport - a sport in which a team can score 80 points and still get slaughtered. So that's one reason soccer will never capture the American imagination, but the second reason is the real deal breaker. Have you noticed that play goes on for 45+ minutes without a break? Do you realize what that means? It means 45+ minutes  without commercials! Do you honestly think the networks will participate in cutting their own revenue streams?

If soccer could win over an American audience, we would do what we've done with every other internationally popular sport - we'd pay the highest salaries by a factor of 10 or more, and we'd attract the best talent from around the globe to our teams, just as we've done with the world's best baseball and basketball players. Then we'd dominate the world at that sport, just as we've done with every other sport we really care about.

American exceptionalism is a very real thing. It's the inevitable result of being rich enough to buy whatever you want.


If the score in American football is 21-14 then that's a 3-2 game in football. I don't get it. American Exceptionalism is real only in the minds of ignorant fools who refuse to live in global world and participate in global sports. You would never have a Premier League or local derbies or rivalries due to the size and age of your country.

Man U vs Liverpool is about much more than football. It's economic, political and social. The reason Man U has a ship on their crest is due to the Manchester Ship canal. It took decent jobs and political influence away from Liverpool.
 
2014-07-14 03:19:21 AM

hubiestubert: wall of text...


Ok, sure. This isn't news to more than a tenth of the people on fark, I'd wager. Go convince people that need convincing.
 
2014-07-14 03:29:46 AM
Sandra Fluke is in her list of attention whores? Really?

Yeah, not taking this one seriously.
 
2014-07-14 03:32:08 AM

Bandito King: hubiestubert: wall of text...

Ok, sure. This isn't news to more than a tenth of the people on fark, I'd wager. Go convince people that need convincing.


The people that need convincing generally can't be convinced.
 
2014-07-14 03:43:28 AM

Gyrfalcon: Bandito King: hubiestubert: wall of text...

Ok, sure. This isn't news to more than a tenth of the people on fark, I'd wager. Go convince people that need convincing.

The people that need convincing generally can't be convinced.


I'm not entirely convinced of that.
 
2014-07-14 03:46:47 AM

wotthefark: If the score in American football is 21-14 then that's a 3-2 game in football.


And how many 3-2 games do you see? Not as many as there are 1-0 or 1-1 games.

wotthefark: You would never have a Premier League or local derbies or rivalries due to the size and age of your country.


Nonsense. Seattle Sounders/Portland Timbers (64,000 fans tonight). Green Bay Packers/Chicago Bears. New York Yankees/Boston Red Sox. New York Knicks/Philadelphia 76ers. Shall I go on?

wotthefark: Man U vs Liverpool is about much more than football. It's economic, political and social. The reason Man U has a ship on their crest is due to the Manchester Ship canal. It took decent jobs and political influence away from Liverpool.


Yes, and the San Diego Chargers were named that because their original owner also operated Diners Club. Your point?
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report