So When are we invading Canada?

[larryhead]

:D

OTTAWA/SURREY, British Columbia (Reuters) - The United States made an unprecedented foray into Canada's election campaign on Tuesday, warning politicians not to bash Washington in their bid to win the January 23 election.


But an unapologetic Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin responded immediately by saying "c'est la vie" -- that's life -- if the United States did not like his remarks, and he would not accept anyone telling him he cannot defend his country.

In a hard-hitting speech in Ottawa, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins lamented what he called relentless and incessant criticism of his country, which he speculated might begin to sow doubt about the strength of the binational relationship......

Full Story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051213/ts_nm/politics_usa_dc)

[slam]

"Like maple syrup, Canada's evil oozes over the United States."

[bubz_bluez]

im not going to bash canada cause their freedoms are seeming more like the american way every day........your more free up there than down here. if i ever take vaction anywhere im going to spend a week in canada and live it up get free meds im gonna love it!

bubz

[JVO]

You can't get free meds unless you agree to give the Queen 80% of your earnings.

[bubz_bluez]

no way? thats what you have to agree to?!? fuck the queen rich bitch

bubz

[Diamond Vision]

I'll give the Queen 80% of my cock up side her head if she even thinks about touching my moo-lah!

[JVO]

BB: The reason why health care is free in Canada, and other socialized countries, is because the citizens of the country are required to pay very high tax rates. Also the health care that you receive is not nearly as good as it is in the U.S. or Japan (although unless you need some sort of crazy surgery it probably doesn't matter too much). That is the trade off. That is why it is so difficult for Canada to maintain a sports team that competes with teams in America. If you are a player who gets paid $1,000,000 in Canada it would be like getting paid $600,000 in the US because tax rates are so much higher in Canada. America could socialize Health Care (in fact Pres. Clinton tried to do just that), but it would mean that we would have to increase taxes significantly. You may think this is a fair trade off or you may not, but that is how it works.

[slam]

or, we could just increase taxes on the very rich.

i, for one, would be willing to sacrifice our sports entertainment for universal healthcare.

but i'm a pinko.

[JVO]

Yes you are!

We would not need to sacrifice all the sports teams, only all the rich people (aka all the jobs!). The reason why America has so many rich people is because our economy is one of the very few that actually encourage people to make something of themselves. In socialized countries you are going to get paid the same no matter how hard you work, so you might as well slack off. If you want to open your own business, you know from the get-go that a vast majority of your profits are going to the government, so what's the point of trying to create new jobs and new industries, since little profit will be gained despite the risk and hard work that you put it. That is why there are several times more millionaires in the US than in all of Europe combined (all of the world combined!). And most of the Europeans who are rich are Aristocrats who live off of the tax money that everyone else pays. Whereas in America, anybody can become rich, if they are willing to work hard enough (which I am not!).

[Diamond Vision]

What about all the profits from soda machines that all those high school sports teams use? if we cancelled the sports programs, all those profits could go for socialized health care. Also, all those people who are capable of nothing but playing a silly game could be processed and sold for soylent green. There's some health care funding there. and then, all those exorbitant salaries that no longer have anyone to pay? healthcare! and, as long as we're in the soylent green business, what about the elderly? and prison inmates?

you might disagree, but... no, you don't understand... it's.... it's people, damn it! PEEEEEPOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh..... ...

[JVO]

With out all of the soda machines, all of the people who load the machines, bottle the soda, drive the trucks, build the soda machines, fix the soda machines, and the bank tellers who process all of the change would lose their jobs and be forced to collect unemployment (which would be more expensive than health care)

If there were no sports, all of the vendors, janitors, referees, players, trainers, doctors, coaches, managers, marketers, accountants, scouts, security personnel, agents, tickets salespeople, ticket makers, and parking attendants would be out of a job. All the sport journalists, photographers, marketers, sales people, sports editors, people who make newspapers, people who make ink, people who fix the presses would be out of a job. All the radio sports journalists, engineers, marketers, janitors, office assistants, station supervisors would be out of a job. All of the sporting good companies would lose most of their workers. Not to mention all of the people who work for the players/lawyers/ other wealthy people (maids, drivers, accountants etc.) This means they would lose health care benefits, and be forced to file for unemployment. Our unemployment rate would explode. This isn't even taking into account the devistation this would cause at the college level. Many smaller institutions would be forced to close, and most of the larger schools would have to dramatically cut back on things they offer to students (computer labs, lab equipment, professors etc.)

Also the easiest and best way to revitalize a city is to build a sports area. The economies in Denver, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and San Diego skyrocketed only after stadiums were built in downtown areas. Even if you estimate how much stadiums cost tax payers, the cities still make much more money than they spend. Add the tourism draw to the mix and they really prosper. That is why cities fight so hard to get sports teams.

[Diamond Vision]

unemployed => soylent green

build a stadium => build a soylent green processing facility

it all adds up to me.

[slam]

If there were no sports, all of the vendors, janitors, referees, players, trainers, doctors, coaches, managers, marketers, accountants, scouts, security personnel, agents, tickets salespeople, ticket makers, and parking attendants would be out of a job. All the sport journalists, photographers, marketers, sales people, sports editors, people who make newspapers, people who make ink, people who fix the presses would be out of a job. All the radio sports journalists, engineers, marketers, janitors, office assistants, station supervisors would be out of a job. All of the sporting good companies would lose most of their workers. Not to mention all of the people who work for the players/lawyers/ other wealthy people (maids, drivers, accountants etc.) This means they would lose health care benefits, and be forced to file for unemployment. Our unemployment rate would explode.

i think that's ridiculous. sports are not the only way to create jobs. if everyone collectively decided they'd like to put as much time, effort, and money into, say, picking up trash, or reading to the elderly, we could employ a lot of people doing those things. it's not like, if we cut out sports, somehow all the money would disappear. it would just be spent on other things, creating other jobs.

personally, i think it's a collossal waste of man hours. but hey, if people like it, whatever.

[JVO]

Of course sports are not the only way to create jobs, no single industry is single handedly responsible for the creation of jobs. But to say that we should scrub sports and use the resources to "pick up trash" is among the most ideological things I have ever heard. We do not live in Oz, we live in the real world. Who is going to pay all the people to pick up trash? You got it TAXPAYERS!!!! What you are proposing is that it would be better if we abolished a private industry the generates 100's of billions of dollars (not to mention brings joy to over 100 million people) and replace it with a public industry in which the taxpayers are required to pay millions of dollars. That seems like a pretty good way to completely screw up the economy. While we are at it, why don't we completely elliminate music? No more albums, no more concerts, no more radio, and instead we could use the resources to plant tulips on every vacant plot in the country (I just love tulips!). Just because you don't like sports, don't discount the great good that sports give to its followers. Image the incredible warmth and happiness you feel when you go see one your favorite bands in concert. You know that warm feeling down deep in you stomach, that feeling that if you wanted to you could fly. The feeling that whatever may be happening in the world, it is ok because in this moment of time, you feel truly free and happy. Now magnify by a hundred and you have some appreciation for what the Red Sox fans felt when they won the world series. Are you proposing that we should take this happiness away from these people or that the process that brought about this happiness is a waste of time? I would rather go to a Bronco Superbowl then perhaps any other event I can imagine on the planet. Why would you want to take this happiness away from me (and the 10's of millions like me), just because you don't understand it? That is the same attitude that the Christian Right have toward Gays. If we don't understand it, it must be wrong, let's destroy it. Your brand of liberalism is just as dangerous as their brand of conservatism.

[slam]

settle down there bunky. i'm not favoring the abolition of the sporting industry. obviously, people like it, are willing to spend their money on it, and are happier as a result of the whole process.

i'm merely saying that 'sports create jobs' is a silly reason to spend money on it. now, 'sports makes people happy' is perfectly acceptable to me.

however, i think the world would certainly be a better place if people found enjoyment through simply helping each other out, and were willing to spend their money on that. but i by no means think we should dictate what people should spend their money on.

[JVO]

Ranting is fun!!!!!

Why is spending money on sports because they create jobs a "silly idea"? Cities and University's invest in sports because it makes good business sense to do so. Why do you think University's spend the time and effort on sports that they do? Sports are one of the very few things that actually bring money into a University. That is why when the NCAA puts sanctions on a sports team it is so devastating to the University. If the University of Illinois were striped of their sports programs, it would take them years to recover (if ever). The University would not be upset because they lost the sports programs, they would be upset because they would lose the millions of dollars that college sports generate for the University. For smaller schools, like Columbia College, the only reason why they are able to function is because of their sports teams. Without the revenue they earn from sports, they would be forced to increase tuition so high that no one would be able to afford it. Cities fight tooth and nail to get pro franchises because having a sports team increases the amount of money in that city. Cities would not want a sports team if they were going to lose money. It is estimated that the city of Detroit is going to get $250,000,000 from the Super Bowl this year. And that is just one game. Sports make cities and Universities richer, so how could it be a bad idea to invest money in one of the few things that is guarenteed to make a profit? Is making a profit and generating revenue for a city/University bad?

Every time we pay taxes the government is dictating what we should spend money on.

[slam]

Every time we pay taxes the government is dictating what we should spend money on.

heh, i knew you'd catch me on that one :> you're right, of course. i guess i'm in favor of making people spend some of their money in ways they wouldn't want to, but that cuts both ways. i, personally, don't want to invest money in opening markets for our phamaceutical companies, but i'm sure other people don't want their money spent on aid to foreign countries. outside of taxes, though, people should be pretty much free to do with their money what they want (except give unlimited amounts to political candidates, but that's a whole other rant)

as for college athletics, i was always very, very pissed off that *any* of my tuition money was spent on athletics. i didn't give a shit about our sports teams. i was paying lots and lots of money for a solid education, and it burned me to no end that any of that cash was being spent on sports stadiums.

if the athletic teams are so damn profitable, why do they need my tuition money? i personally think that the 'sports teams raise revenue' is a total myth. i have never, ever seen that actually backed up by numbers. do you know anyplace that has that data?

[JVO]

Let me do some research on that and I'll see what I can come up with.

I agree that citizens have an obligation to pay taxes for the greater wellfare of society at large. I just think that it is a fine line between citizens being helped by the government, and citizens being put in a position where they rely on the government.

I also agree that there should be limits on political contributions. I think the 1st Amendment arguement is interesting, but I have never bought the idea the money = speech.

[JVO]

Alright, from the research I have been able to gather, up until the late 80's almost all Schools benefited from college athletics. With the change in laws (Title 9) that said that women must have an equal opportunity to compete in athletics these number decreased. All men's basketball and football organizations (over the long term) make money, but because the revenue must be split with all of the other sports programs (almost all of which do not make money) there are fewer schools who actually make a profit off of athletics. Still it is estimated that over 50% of Universities make substancial profits from athletics. This includes the selling of tickets, tv contract, and merchandise sales.

Here is the beginning of a paper written by a law professor at BYU which favors the paying of college athletes. His contention is that the University exploits Student-Athletes by receiving huge profits and not passing on the financial winfall to those who earned the money.

I.Introduction

Intercollegiate athletics have been a part of the university system for many years. Suc*cessful athletic programs are a way of in*stilling pride in the student body, and bringing prestige, name recognition, and funding to the university. An unfortu*nate by-product of college athletics has been the exploitation of student-athletes. This paper will discuss some ways in which student-ath*letes have been exploited and why reforms are needed in college athletics. We will discuss some of the meth*ods the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) has employed in an attempt to cure this exploi*tation and ex*plain why further steps need to be taken. Since professional and college sports are inevitably intertwined, we advocate that pro*fessional sports leagues assist in protecting student-ath*letes. This paper introduces a plan that would allow monetary com*pensation for student-athletes. This plan will fairly com*pensate student-athletes for their work while pre*serving the amateur nature of col*lege athletics.



II.Background

As college athletics have become more lu*crative, their sig*nificance often overshadows the institution's academic purpos*es. Indeed, college athletics have become big business. In 1989, the NCAA signed a seven-year, one billion dollar television contract giving CBS the exclusive right to televise all NCAA bas*ketball tournament games.[1] The NCAA has a multimillion-dollar annual budget and it ne*gotiates and administers for itself or its members for regular season sports over $20,000,000 a year in television contracts.[2] For this rea*son, Hunter R. Rawlings III, president of the University of Iowa, has suggested that tele*vision controls university athletics.[3] ATV determines the times and sites of our games, controls our athletic departments' bud*gets, and dictates conference membership and re*alignments.@[4] Many teams also bring in money through local television cover*age. Ticket sales to sell-out stadium events produce ad*ditional revenue.

In addition to direct revenue, successful college athletic programs use their name rec*ognition to market merchandise adorned with their school names and logos throughout the country. They further generate substantial revenue by convert*ing their athletic programs' prestige and notoriety into gener*ous alumni donations and increased enroll*ment.[5] At the center of all this money are the student-athletes who are prohibited from sharing in the revenue that they generate. Exploitation results from universities' focus on potential revenue that ath*letes might bring to the school, rather than the student's per*sonal and educational welfare.

To read this entire article see: http://www.law2.byu/jel/sp1994/htm/murphy.htm