1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cuban vs. Jones - no, not the Sj.com Jones

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Yawn, Feb 12, 2007.


Who would you want owning your local sports franchise?

  1. Jerry Jones

    1 vote(s)
  2. Mark Cuban

    25 vote(s)
  1. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    OK. Let's see how this goes.
  2. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    I'd vote for Karl Marx, because he's a communist and, in short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

    In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

    Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

    The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

    Proletarians of all countries, unite!
  3. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    And then once in power, the Stalins rise up and kill anything that disagrees with them, including renegade press people who choose to stand up for the newly created oppressed.

    Disunite your head with your ass.
  4. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I'm with andy.

    Think about it. Communist owners of NBA franchises would be a good thing. If players are making just a living wage, tickets would be cheaper. Maybe 50 cents for a front-row NBA seat.

    And no agents.

    What's not to like?
  5. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    Also, when it comes to potential owners and the NBA vs. NFL, don't you think that differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

    No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

    The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

    The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first, the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the work of people of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois condition of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

    At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

    But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

    Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

    Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
  6. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member


    You are on a roll. See, this is where sports can be at the forefront of societal change.

    That dissolution of the ruling class thing sounds boffo! You are a heckuva writer.

    Thanks, Yawn, for sparking this illuminating thread.
  7. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    Thanks. I just started typing and the words came to me. Yawn, apparently, has spoken to Hannity about SportsJournalists.com, so maybe he can forward this thread, get it on the air, and, hey, who knows?
  8. Big Buckin' agate_monkey

    Big Buckin' agate_monkey Active Member

    Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.
  9. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Mark Cuban. Good Pittsburgh kid.
  10. indiansnetwork

    indiansnetwork Active Member

    Plain and simple Cuban is the best owner in sports. Secondly stfu liberal (communist) jerks, you are the reason this country does not have a clear direction and our morals are laughable to every one in the world.
  11. Yeah, I'm sure the world loves our current policy of torture, and shooting first and asking questions later. Good lord, you are fucking borderline retarded.
  12. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member


    I think you give him too much credit.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page