Socialism

How Another Patriots' Super Bowl Victory Explains Anti-Billionaire Politics

Even with all the steps the NFL takes to level the playing field between teams, the Patriots keep rising to the top. It generates some envy, and resentment.

|

American politics at the moment can pretty much be explained by what you make of the record sixth Super Bowl victory by New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, coach Bill Belichick, and owner Robert Kraft.

One view of it is to marvel at, and celebrate, the hard work, risk-taking, and skill that produced the achievement. That's the more conservative view of it.

Another is to complain about it and wish the winning were more evenly distributed. That's the more left-leaning view of it.

President Trump has been cheering on the Patriots. "Never bet against Bob Kraft, Bill Belichick or Tom Brady!" the president tweeted.

Political thinker William Kristol, who isn't often in agreement with Trump, put a certain conservative core on display when, after the Patriots made it into the Super Bowl with an overtime playoff win, Kristol tweeted an excerpt of remarks made by the University of Chicago political philosopher Leo Strauss upon the death of Winston Churchill: "We have no higher duty, and no more pressing duty, than to remind ourselves and our students, of…human greatness, of the peaks of human excellence."

The NFL owners have chosen to organize their affairs in a way that places a priority on equality of opportunity, if not equality of outcome.

National revenue—about $8 billion in 2017—is split evenly among the 32 teams in the league. An inflexible salary cap means that each team is allowed to spend only a set amount on paying players, so richer teams can't win just by paying more for better athletes. The worst team each year gets the first draft pick, and the Super Bowl champion gets the last draft pick.

Even all those steps to level the playing field, though, have not prevented the Patriots from assembling their impressive collection of Super Bowl wins.

This, in turn, generates some envy, or resentment.

The New York Post observed, "Sports fans grow to hate teams that win all the time."

It's a bit like less successful companies complaining about the market power of Facebook, Google, and Amazon, or like socialist politicians such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez complaining about the existence of billionaires. Rather than be impressed by the genius or excellence that led to the business success or the accumulation of wealth, there's an impulse to attack the outcome as evidence of some sort of flaw in the system.

Kraft, who has been attending Patriots games since the 1970s, when the team was mired in mediocrity, seems not particularly troubled by the popular reaction. "For us to get to the point in less than two decades where people are rooting against us because we've won, that's a high-class problem, and I hope we keep it going for quite a while," the Post quoted him as saying.

If some of the proposals being advanced in the political economics sphere—confiscatory taxation imposed on an unpopular minority, for example—were advanced in the football realm, though, Kraft might be less pleased.

This isn't entirely abstract speculation. Politicians can see the parallels, too. A Republican congressman from Texas, Dan Crenshaw, tweeted sarcastically last night, "Should someone propose a 70% tax on the Patriots so that NFL competition is more fair and equal?"

Ocasio-Cortez's policy aide, Dan Riffle, replied that the salary cap is effectively "a 100% tax," and that "the league has revenue-sharing, aka wealth redistribution."

Unless the NFL bans Brady from eating well and exercising, or bans Belichick from watching videos of his competitors' games, there's no way to prevent some inequality. Both Brady and Belichick were football fans at a young age, and they both may have been influenced by their genetic background and their family environment at an early age. They've also been shaped by decades of valuable experience that includes both wins and losses.

Probably the same can be said for the disparate attitudes toward winning and competition that are on display in the reaction to the Patriots victory. They were formed at a young age, accumulated and solidified over time, and there isn't much that can be done about them.

I will say, though, that as a Massachusetts native and sports fan who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, I used to feel about the Yankees a bit the way a lot of people now feel about the Patriots. My views on the matter of excessive winning in sports have evolved along with improvements in both the Red Sox and the Patriots.

Perhaps, then, the way to cure Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of their socialism is to make them billionaires. One possible route might be to find a losing professional sports franchise and successfully turn it around into a consistent champion. It is not easy.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of JFK, Conservative.

NEXT: Conference at Emory (3/21-3/23) on academic freedom and campus free speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >>>Even with all the steps the NFL takes to level the playing field between teams

    you mean other than Pats?

  2. The Patriots’ win is pure cronyism.
    But I suppose if you want to celebrate the hard work, risk taking, and skill involved in successfully benefiting from cronyism, go for it.

    1. What cronyism? They have the oldest quarterback in the league.

      1. Also the greatest of all time…

        1. That is debatable. He’s missed multiple games because of injury or suspensions and the Patriots have been able to win without him. He was basically a non-factor on the game yesterday (despite getting an unearned MVP, should have went to Eddelman). I think the he has benefitted from the system but he isn’t a great down field thrower, he is pretty good at reading defenses, but there are those who are better. His accuracy is average. No, he is a good Quarterback working for probably (though I dislike him immensely) the finest football coach ever.

          1. I tend to agree with you. Brady was a very average QB this year. He threw for less than 3000 yards, which is nothing in this day and age. The Patriots on paper at least had no business beating the Chargers much less the Chiefs. How he managed to get that defense to even be competitive is beyond me.

            The Patriots’ success begins and ends with Belichek. I have no doubt there are at least a dozen other quraterbacks he could have had during this run and had the same success or more.

          2. Where the Patriots are light years ahead of everyone else is personnel. They consistently draft smart, bring in free agents who can contribute, and take other teams’ head cases like the old Raiders of Madden used to do.

            1. They really don’t draft that well. They have had a ton of picks that have not turned out. And their defense is amazingly unatheletic and average. What they do well is somehow get the absolute most of the generally average talant they have on defense. They haven’t had a talented defense since 2004.

              1. ahhh, Eddelman won the MVP…FYI

          3. Brady consistently plays to the strength of the team, whatever that may be. When he was given Randy Moss to throw to, he became the first QB to throw 50 TD passes in a season. When he had a young Gronk and Aaron Hernandez as tight ends, he had no trouble getting balls downfield to them. What Brady excels at is reading defenses to usually find open targets, and not being tempted to play hero-ball which results in back-breaking late game interceptions, a la Brett Favre. He’s also exceptionally calm under pressure.

            If Brady were merely ‘good’ New England would have happily traded him to any other team for multiple first-round draft picks and kept Matt Cassel, or Ryan Mallett, or Jimmy Garroppolo. They’ve done that with plenty of other talented players instead of shelling out high dollar contracts.

            1. Brady has always struggled with down field throwing. Hernandez and Gronk were great receivers who adjusted to underthrown balls or inaccurately thrown balls. As for reading defenses, he is good, but not great at it. He is no where in the same league as say Peyton was. Additionally, the fact he has never been traded doesn’t really prove anything, because he fits Bellichecks style and is willing to play for less than what his market value is. When it comes to raw talent, I think there has been a number of better QBs. I still maintain that Dan Marino may have been the best talent wise of all time, but he never had a team to support him.

              1. Or rules that protected him like Brady has.

              2. Marino was never a clutch QB. He didnt make his team better. Brady has not been surrounded by a wave of HOF caliber players. Gronk is one. Edelman is one. Brady is one. He had Moss briefly and he is one. Its not like he was given tons of talent.

                Brady is money. He just wins. He is better than Montana who also was a winner. Being able to win consistently is a major thing.

                1. Marino wasn’t a clutch player? Really? He was one of the best come from behind QB of his time. And please name what HOF players Marino was surrounded by. Anyone who knows anything about football knows that the Dolphins would have sucked without Marino. He never had any great players around him. It is well accepted that Marino never had a team to match his talent. He was one of the fastest releases in NFL history (and was the first to use the one and a half step drop instead of three step). He introduced the quick release pass. He convinced coaches that a quick drop back and quick release could be successful. If not for Marino it is unlikely Brady would be playing today. Montana was another good player who benefitted from great receivers and a system that played to his strengths. Remember, no one had ever seen the West Coast offense and add in Jerry Rice. It just was a great system.

                  1. Marino wasn’t a clutch player? Really? He was one of the best come from behind QB of his time.

                    When the game didn’t really matter, yes, he was money. When a title was on the line, he was far from it.

                    And please name what HOF players Marino was surrounded by. Anyone who knows anything about football knows that the Dolphins would have sucked without Marino.

                    One SB appearance and several rather bad playoff appearances isn’t what I’d call good.

                    It is well accepted that Marino never had a team to match his talent.

                    Do you think Edelman or Gronk develop into HOF with anybody besides Brady, honestly? He knew how to make them work to their best.

                    If not for Marino it is unlikely Brady would be playing today. Montana was another good player who benefitted from great receivers and a system that played to his strengths. Remember, no one had ever seen the West Coast offense and add in Jerry Rice. It just was a great system.

                    Marino introduced the quick release pass. Was that not a good system?

                    I’m a Bills fan. I love Jim Kelly but he was nowhere near as clutch as Brady was — and that was with significantly more talent around him. I don’t love the Pats, but I respect the hell out of them.

                    1. Coaches didn’t believe in the quick release pass and short drop back. Marino proved that both could be effective. As for your contention that he did not win in clutch games, it really comes down to the fact that he never had a team to support him. The fact that he made it as far as he did totally lacking a run game or any defense for most of his career demonstrates exactly how good he is. Winning in post season doesn’t prove anything. Flacco anyone?

                  2. Actually, check out the 4th quarter or overtime game winning drives chart. Do you think that it is any coincidence that Manning, Brady, Favre, Elway, and Marino are at the top?

                    1. Jim Kelley was plenty clutch. He’s in the top 20 or so all-time in 4th quarter or overtime gwd.

                  3. The Dolphins were a one dimensional team with Marino, and that was how he liked it. If the other team took away that dimension, the Dolphins were in trouble.

              3. Brady has always struggled with down field throwing. Hernandez and Gronk were great receivers who adjusted to underthrown balls or inaccurately thrown balls.

                He threw downfield just fine when he had Moss, Gronk, and Hernandez catching passes because that’s the style of offense they had. Take Jerry RIce off the Niners and would they have been as successful? Would that have been Montana’s fault?

                As for reading defenses, he is good, but not great at it. He is no where in the same league as say Peyton was.

                No, he’s right up there with anyone at that. It may be that he prepares better rather than having some innate talent for it, but the fact is that he doesn’t get fooled by defenses often. If that just means he’s an exceptional pupil, then he’s an exceptional pupil.

                1. Additionally, the fact he has never been traded doesn’t really prove anything, because he fits Bellichecks style and is willing to play for less than what his market value is.

                  Brady wasn’t willing to play for rookie contract money, though, and if he were just some easily replacable system QB he would have been traded for draft picks. Purportedly Belicheck was winning with any old shmoe at the position, so there would have been no need to keep anyone with a trade value as high as Brady’s. They went 11-5 with Matt Cassel when Brady got his ACL torn in the first game of 2008, and they didn’t trade Brady like they did Bledsoe at that age. Belichick’s always harped about ‘what’s best for the team’ when he traded or released guys like Bledsoe, Lawyer Milloy, RIchard Seymour, Ty Law, Vince Wilfork, etc. If Brady were considered replaceable, he’d have been dealt too.

                  When it comes to raw talent, I think there has been a number of better QBs. I still maintain that Dan Marino may have been the best talent wise of all time, but he never had a team to support him.

                  Marino had talent in spades, but he couldn’t seem to make the players around him better, and back then there was no free agency to worry about. He never had a good defense and that’s not his fault at all, but Brady somehow wins with an ever-changing assortment of backs and receivers. But it takes more than just ‘raw talent’ to be an exceptional QB. See: George, Jeff

                  1. Marino did make the players around him. Without him they never would have made it anywhere. He literally carried that team and any success they had was all because of him.

                    1. Marino did make the players around him. Without him they never would have made it anywhere. He literally carried that team and any success they had was all because of him.

                      What I mean to say is that Brady has made average players seem great. Wes Welker was a mediocre receiver until he went to the Patriots, then he regressed when he left. Same can be said of Amendola, and Deion Branch. Gronk would probably be a HOF tight end wherever he played, but otherwise Brady has made decent players seem great. Marino certainly carried his teams, but he didn’t seem to elevate the play of those around him like Brady has.

                      Note: This is pretty subjective, and I was pretty young in the early part of Marino’s career.

                  2. In my view, the sin qua non of quarterback metrics is the # of 4th quarter / ot game winning drives.

                    Look at the correlation of the leaders in that category to who most people generally consider the best of all time. Manning, Brees, Favre, Marino, Brady, Unitas, Elway, Tarkenton, Big Ben et al.

                    Its not the only measurement by any means. But, I think it merits a lot of weight.

                    Sure, there are some anomalies, like Jake the Snake (30) having more than Montana, Bradshaw, Fouts, Stabler, Staubach, and Starr.

                    1. “Look at the correlation of the leaders in that category to who most people generally consider the best of all time. Manning, Brees, Favre, Marino, Brady, Unitas, Elway, Tarkenton, Big Ben et al.”

                      Sorry. The best QB of all-time was Otto Graham of the Cleveland Browns. 10 years (1946-1955), 10 championship games, 7 Championships. He was a fine runner as well as passer.

                    2. Big T – Of course, automatic Otto was awesome. In fact, just today, I have made the point on these here interweb pages.

                      However, titles and championship appearances are not the only metrics in town and nor should they be.

                    3. ” titles and championship appearances are not the only metrics in town and nor should they be.”

                      True, but that’s what is being used to support Brady as GOAT. Different metrics result in different rankings.

                2. I argued above that Montana wasn’t as great as they made him out to be but Rice and the system made me better.

                  1. Don’t sell Marino short on clutch. In fact, those that argue he wasn’t clutch know not of what they bullshit. He’s third all-time in 4th quarter / ot game winning drives.

                    1. In a different age when rules favored offenses and QBs far less then they do today. I think it was Bradshaw who said something about how long he could have played if the rules that protected QB today had been around in his day.

          4. despite getting an unearned MVP, should have went to Eddelman

            Holy shit. I just assumed Eddleman got it without paying attention. smh

            1. I was mistaken Edelman did get it. To be honest I turned the game off after the last play and misheard it on the radio this morning. Well they got it right, I stand corrected.

          5. All he does is win. Pathetic.

          6. Edelman did win the MVP. Please try to keep up.

      2. They’ve been caught cheating multiple times and get off with slaps on the wrist. Goodell just happens to be very good friends with Kraft. They also seem to get an inordinate amount of favorable calls by the officiating crew.

          1. Your link doesn’t disprove the fact that the NFL has found them guilty of cheating g twice. And like with most so called fact checkers the authors twists his way around to probe jis point of view. Stop reposting this as if it were fact.

  3. “Rather than be impressed by the genius or excellence that led to the business success or the accumulation of wealth, there’s an impulse to attack the outcome as evidence of some sort of flaw in the system.”

    Now do countries

  4. except not, you must not watch sports. The Patriots arn’t hated because they win, they are hated because they are a bunch of cheaters.

    Also get rid of divisions. They got a bye week after playing in a shit division (really it’s been shit for a decade), while the Chargers had a better record and played on the road for their two games).

    1. They have divisions because they cannot have balanced schedules with a 16 game season and 32 team league. Comparing records across divisions is not apples to apples.

    2. Many people hate the Patriots because Belichek is a POS.

      1. And the refs favor the Pats, just as they did on Sunday.

        1. There was one ignominiously bad call on the Rams, otherwise nothing that in any way affected the outcome of the game.

      2. Many people hate the Patriots because their home teams keep losing to the Patriots.

  5. The New York Post observed, “Sports fans grow to hate teams that win all the time unless it’s their home team.”

    There, that’s better.

    1. I’ve heard it all with teams that dominate. People hate dynasties. Personally, I love them.

      Why can’t we just enjoy it without babbling bull shit to the point of obnoxiousness?

      Want it to stop?

      WIN. Beat your opponent.

      But you can’t. So you whine.

      Whine like the losers we see infesting the modern progressive ranks. Oozing with dread and envy whenever excellence is achieved.

      1. People would love to have their team win. It just hasn’t worked out that way. You can’t blame them for not liking it when a rival team wins at their team’s expense.

        1. The Patriots have been vulnerable many times. But the other teams – outside the Giants and Eagles – shit their pants tying to take advantage of it – like the Falcons. I also here the criticism that the Pats are lucky the AFC east sucks. How is that their fault that the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have been incompetent?

          Even if we concede that point. They still went on to 9 SB and won six of those against NFC opposition. They only lost to two teams because the Giants beat them twice.

          I can’t stand excuses and blame.

          Which is why I loathed Obama and loathe Trudeau. Excuse making asshats.

          1. hear

          2. The Patriots have been given the benefit of every close call in every big game prior to the Super Bowl for going on 20 years now. They were down seven points against KC and were given an absurd roughing the passer call and a late off sides call that hadn’t been called all game and was only called after an interception that would have ended the game in the AFC title game.

            They were also caught filming and using other teams’ practices and signals. And if you don’t think there was anything to that, why did the NFL destroy all of the evidence before it could be made public? As Liberty Mike points out, there are good reasons to feel that the Patriots have been given unfair advantages during this run.

            1. Great teams – and players – always get the benefit of the calls. Real Madrid, name a tennis player here, Yankees in the 90s, the Lakers and Celtics etc. Soccer is notorious for that sort of thing.

              I’m no Pats fan but this sort of stuff overlooks the large body of work – and you better than anyone knows this.

              /Sprinkles water on John’s face.

              1. I saw footage of Michael Jordan hitting HIS OWN ARM during a layup and getting a foul call regardless.

                The great players/teams get the breaks.

                …besides, it’s not like the Rams didn’t get any beneficial calls…

                1. Maradona Hand of God.

              2. So you are admitting they get an unfair advantage. That is what I am saying and why people loath them. And the Yankees in the 1990s never benefited from any horrible umpriing that I can remember. And the Lakers and the Celtics got the same star treatment every other team with a star got.

                1. I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying there’s a belief out there great teams/players get the benefit of the calls but I don’t think there’s necessarily a conspiracy.

                  It’s the story of sports.

                  Heck, I’ve been on both sides of that coin. One team I was on was ‘lucky’ because the league was on our side, and another we were all hard done by and the world was against us.

                  Corruption, bad calls, poor sportsmanship etc happens.

                  See World Cup 2002 too as another example.

                  1. I don’t think it’s corruption, I think it’s unconscious bias. It has, however, been pointed out to the league multiple times and yet they refuse to correct it, so at some point it becomes willful on the part of the NFL. They also seem to have influence on the rules committee much more than other teams.

                    1. You have that backwards. The rules committee’s main function each year seems to be getting together to draft yet another rule that reacts to the different adjustments the Patriots made to win in the year preceding.

                2. Um, remember Reggie Jackson and the Right Hip of God?

            2. Dee Ford was a good half-yard offsides on that play. The idea that it was a bad call is ludicrous.
              Should defenses just be able to line up in the backfield behind Brady just because you want the Patriots to lose?

              1. Here’s the play.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXh8H6dozk

                Watch the ref at the top of the screen throw the flag immediately after the ball is snapped, not after the interception. Piss and moan more, John.

                1. He wasn’t even close to that. And people lineup that far all of the time and isn’t called. And they didn’t throw the flag until after the interception. Explain that

                  1. He wasn’t even close to that. And people lineup that far all of the time and isn’t called.

                    He was well offsides. Show me some highlights of people that far offsides and getting away with it. Show me plays of that happening with Patriots defensive players during this past AFC Championship game, and you might have a point.

                    And they didn’t throw the flag until after the interception. Explain that

                    I actually showed the video of the exact play where you can clearly see the line judge throw the flag right after the ball was snapped and long before the interception.

                    In case you missed it:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXh8H6dozk

                    1. JFC, the announcer even noted the flag was thrown before the interception.

                      “Stands in the pocket… flag’s out, ball’s picked”

                      Keep lying, John.

                  2. No, they don’t line up that far over the line all the time. Dee Ford took a chance because he was tired and wanted a head start. Period. And he got caught. Period.

              2. The Pats outplayed the Chiefs for most of the game.

                1. The cheifs lackef anything resembling a defense, especially a run defense. And everyone knows defenses win championships.

                  1. The Chiefs are handicapped by having Andy Reid as head coach, who ALWAYS chokes when the stakes are high. I can’t think of another coach who’s been blessed with that many talented teams, on two different franchises, but has never won a super bowl.

                    1. In fairness to Reid, he made the Eagles franchise a legit viable one. I think they’re 4th in wins since 2000. He did the same to KC. He knows how to make franchises very good. But to take them over the top? To be continued….

                    2. Norv Turner?

                    3. God not my night, I meant Marty Schottenheimer. Turner replaced Schottenheimer.

                2. The Chiefs outscored the Pats 31-17 in the second half.

                  1. That’s the problem though with the chiefs, they have to outscore the other team just or be competitive because of their lack of defense. It showed in regular season when they faced good defenses. The Seahawks shredded them.

                  2. The NFL allows four quarters in games because they want the Patriots to win. In a fair league only the second half would count.

                    /John

            3. I didnt figure you for a patriots hater, John. Didnt think you let your emotions overrule logic.

              Deflated footballs. I wonder if that bullshit was a primer for the Russian conspiracy. See how fucking idiotic the general populace is.

              1. First, the ball was underinflated which does assist in catching on in the cold. It was below the limits allowed. All you can argue is that it wasn’t done deliberately. Second, if that had been the only time the Patriots had been caught cheating, you would have a point, but it wasn’t. They had been sanctioned by the NFL before that for cheating. There was also questions about opposing teams losing communications while they were (the opposing team) were on offense. Multiple coaches had complained about it. Coincidentally, when the NFL started investigating, the problem seemed to disappear. I am not stating that is evidence of cheating it is just hugely coincidental. But they were busted for stealing signs, and taping opponents practices, both of which are illegal. They’ve also been accused of contract interference.

                  1. The point I was making isn’t that the Patriots are the only cheaters it’s that they have cheated. Though looking at your link the majority are PED which tend to be an individual not the team breaking the rules. At least some where accusations that were never proven, or investigated. Some we’re just plain ticky tack Mickey mouse bullshit rules the teams had violated. Yes the Patriots are probably not the only cheaters (and they probably are not the only team to steal signs or video tape or deflate balls). My problem is the fact that excuses constantly get made for them, and I think Goodell is much to close to the Kraft’s. But my dislike of the Patriots might be eclipsed by my dislike of Goodell who I feel has been a disastrous commissioner who refuses to change course even when he is obviously wrong.

              1. In this year’s SB there were 5 really bad calls. 4 went in NE’s favor. Case closed.

                1. Only one bad call against the Rams, early in the game, and it didn’t matter. Penalties one way or the other did not affect or decide the game. Actually, it became a defensive game precisely because the refs let the players play, and didn’t call plays in the defensive secondary that could well have been called (both ways) during the regular season. Everyone needs to stop whining. The Pats outplayed the Rams throughout. Jared Goff may still be pondering his career path after that hit from Van Noy put him on his knees. Give the devil his due and move on.

              2. The ball was below limits, that isn’t even debatable. If it was done on purpose can be debated but not the fact that it was below limits.

          3. “like the Falcons”

            Too soon, rufus!

          4. All true. Be interesting to see how the Dolphins emerge with Flores as their new head coach. All those years with Belichick, coaching the Patriots’ linebackers and calling their defensive plays, must count for something. I wish him well.

      2. Want it to stop?

        WIN. Beat your opponent.

        But you can’t. So you whine.

        Exactly. I’m a New Englander so the Patriots are “my team” so it’s nice to see them win. But I also had to live through the 80s when they were garbage. Eventually they’ll be garbage again and someone else will be winning all the time.

        1. There are so many dominant teams that went through this. I remember in the 90s the same thing with Ferrari and their dominance in F1. The other teams – and the anti-Ferrari media – complained and moaned as Ferrari kicked their sorry asses from here to Kingdom come. I was embarrassed for those losers. Then F1 changed a few rules to try and slow down the dominance. And for a while Ferrari still managed to out perform the other teams.

          I don’t follow F1 anymore.

          1. I didn’t even know Ferrari had a club, but then I’ve never followed the Canadian Football League.

          2. Rufus,

            FIA is totally biased towards Ferrari. Whenever someone comes up with an advantage that Ferrari can’t master, FIA bans it so that Ferrari can catch up. FIA has been biased against the independent garagista teams in favor of Ferrari going back to the 1960s.

            1. Like how the NHL was in cahoots with the Habs and MLB with the Yankees….

              1. Ferrari hasn’t been nearly as successful as either of those teams. But, the record of FIA bending over backwards to try and help them be successful is well documented.

                1. I think Ferrari has. They sit atop the all-time top Constructors standings.

                  They’ve won more than anyone else. They’re the essence of racing.

                  1. Mercedes has won the last four or five constructors championships. Ferrari has gone long periods without being relevent. They won in 64 but not again until 75. After they won in 79, they didn’t win again until Schumacker in the 1990s. They were lousy for the entire decade of the 80s and the first half of the 90s.

                    1. And?

                      Big deal Mercedes.

                      Mercedes ain’t Ferrari when it comes to racing.

                    2. Mercedes can leave F1 and it will be met with a ‘meh’.

                      If Ferrari leaves. It’s a little different. No team has that kind of fan support.

                      That’s my point.

        2. But I also had to live through the 80s when they were garbage.

          They went to the Superbowl in 1985. Ok, they got trounced by the Bears, but still.

          1. Pats’ garbage decades are like Yankee garbage decades.

            There are teams that would kill for an equivalent 10 years.

      3. Your comment reeks of unearned victory.

        You mock envy. But, have you created a Facebook, Amazon, or Google yourself?

        Do you think your worship of the achievements of these companies instead of envy somehow make you a winner?

        Human beings can think that being a fan of a winner makes themselves a winner. But it isn’t so. Fans of the Patriots are not winners anymore than fans of the Rams are winners. Fans are neither winners nor losers; they are just spectators. They are not in the arena.

  6. No. Anti billionaire politics arises from the sense that the rich are on the other side politically. If Billionaires don’t want there to be anti-billionaire politics, they nedd to stay out of politics. If they want to do things like buy the Washington Post or spend millions propagandizing socialist green politics the way Tom Steyer does, they should expect people who disagree with them not to like them.

    The rich always walk a fine line. If the public ever gets the sense that they are manipulating politics to their advantage, the backlash is a bitch. This is why the really rich have always been smart to stay out of politics and confine their public works to charity. The specticle of people flying around in their own private 747s lecturing the world on the need to become poorer in the name of global warming is not going to make billionaire’s popular. And that has nothing to do with envy of success. It has to do with the general loathing of rank hypocrisy.

    1. If politicians don’t want billionaires in politics they need to stay out of billionaires’ business (and out of their pockets)

      1. Yeah because the rich and powerful would never use government influence to their advantage. Nope. They are just acting in self defense. Bullshit. It is called regulatory capture. It is why big government never works. Government is always made into a tool to benefit the wealthy and powerful. The only hope is to limit its size power and usefulness for that end.

        1. Its essentially a variant on “no taxation without representation” When the government regulates a business, of course the billionaire that owns (and profits from) that business is going to want a say in how they are regulated. I never said their influence would be benevolent (not to anyone but themselves anyway) but
          the backlash goes both ways.

          Maybe its a chicken or the egg question, whether politicians regulated business first, or businessmen got into politics first, but the main problem is that leveraging the government (to boost your company, or to hold back your competitors) is now a legitimate business strategy, so you have that much correct: the way to end it is by having less government to leverage

          1. As long as there is a government, there will be powerful people who will look to manipulate it and the laws to their benefit.

            1. And as long as there are rich and powerful people they will form a government to institutionalize their wealth and power.

              1. Very true. And given that fact, they are in no position to complain when the populace pushes back. Indeed, they need to be fearful of the populace to some degree because that is the only thing that will moderate their behavior.

            2. I know that this is a mostly dead thread, but Microsoft is a perfect example of what happens when politicians start targeting big companies. Microsoft was famous for being un-interested in federal government. They certainly benefited from many laws, but by and large when it came to things like piracy, their answer to these problems was to use existing law and to try and solve the problems technically with DRM software.

              Around 1996 people started banging on Microsoft with the Anti-Trust drum, and by 1998 the DOJ brought suit. And around that time, we then see Microsoft spending millions in lobbying and helping to craft all sorts of DRM legislation.

              In this day and age where so much market influence has been rendered to regulators, it is difficult to separate the corp from the pol. But it wasn’t always that way for many non-defense industries. But now that the EPA, IRS, DOJ (etc, etc) have their fingers in every industry, billionaires are happy to spend their millions of dollars to lock their prospects in.

    2. This is why the really rich have always been smart to stay out of politics and confine their public works to charity.

      When the income tax was born, conspicuous consumption by the uber-rich died. No more palatial estates surrounded by nine-foot walls. Instead, they hide at the end of long, unmarked drives. Paul Fussell called them the “top out-of-sight.”

      1. It may have died but it is making a come back. And in a particularly erksome way. The old Robber Barons at least gave us Carnigie Hall and the Frick Museum and a million other public treasures. What is the current generation leaving? A lot of leftist and green propaganda bullshit mostly.

        1. The progs could earmark that tax money for [Named After Billionaire] Memorial Bridges.

      2. Yeah, it’s not like the Kardashians are ultra rich or anything.
        Or like kids weren’t going after the high price Nikes or Air Jordans.
        8k TVs? 100″ TVs?
        Conspicuous consumption never went away and it never will.
        Branding is at least as much about conspicuous consumption as it is about building trust and loyalty.

        1. Conspicuous consumption by people who aren’t rich but wish to appear so is an entirely different concept

  7. This is an idiotic analogy. Football unlike the economy is a zero sum game. If the Patriots’ win the Super Bowl, no other team can. So, yes, fans of other teams are going to loath teams that win a lot because their winning necessarily keeps the other teams from doing the same. So disliking a winning franchise and hoping it loses is just a necessary product of rooting for competing teams. That is completely different than being envious of success that doesn’t come at your expense.

    1. Ira does not account for the tuck rule in his analogy.

      He also does not account for all of the favorable officiating.

      To make the analogy work, one must account for the propensity of the refs to give the games to the Patriots.

      1. Or early in the game when the Rams defense broke through the line and nailed the Pat’s ball-carrier in the backfield and immediately the flags came out. The announcers were watching the replay, trying to figure out who was getting called for what while the refs are huddled trying to figure out who should get called for what – all that mattered was a Pat got hit for a loss and therefore they must be given some yardage via penalty.

        1. Fourth quarter, Rams got called for a holding on a good Gurley run that got to about the Pats’ 40. A holding that Romo said, “I wouldn’t have made that call.”

          1. It was one of those plays that technically was holding but rarely ever gets called (I would say 99.9% of the time never gets called). It makes you wonder why in that situation they called it. It definitely changed the tempo. It is those types of calls that piss me off the most. Why call it in that situation when you’ve been ignoring it the whole game? It also pisses me off when the Rams had over 80 yards of penalties and the Patriots 20. I saw at least two blatant pass interference calls that the Patriots got away with.

          2. Yeah, And two plays before that the Rams DIDN’T get called for holding even though they had a DL literally wrapped around a Pats rusher’s neck….but who’s counting?

            1. Oh Jome take Brady’s dick out of your mouth. You are tiresome. No debate just the same post, repost and this little tidbit that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Test along.

        2. Yes. It was a horseshit call. And ended up a big “so what?” because the Pats got no advantage out of it. The Pats won the game because their defense outplayed the Rams’ offense (and I too wonder what the hell was up with Todd Gurley) and their offense was just good enough to produce a late touchdown despite a great defensive game by the Rams. That’s it. Maybe the Rams will get another shot next year. Or some year in the near future. Or not. That’s the great and terrible thing about the Super Bowl. One shot may be all anyone ever gets, and here the Pats have had 9 appearances and 6 wins in 17 years. I hate it, but I appreciate it.

          1. No advantage? It reversed a big run, as the Rams offense was showing some momentum, into a first and twenty that then resulted in another three and out.

        1. Fuck Jome are you able to think for yourself?

    2. When I win at life, no one else wins at life, John. I’m #1!

  8. Wahhhhh

  9. Uh, hte Left Wing view is to denounce White people and be openly virulently racist on Twitter

    1. And “hte” Right Wing view is to denounce all non-white people and be openly virulently racist on Twitter.

      See? There’s a balance.

      1. Bullshit. Can you provide evidence to support this caricature or is this just another empty talking point? Most conservatives celebrate when minorities accomplish great things through hard work. Look at the popularity of Time Scott, Been Carson, Herman Can, Karl Malone etc in conservative circles.

  10. The Rams were pathetic. 3 points. Last year, a backup quarterback and a rookie coach put up 41 Super Bowl points against Belicheck and Brady. The Saints probably would have given them a better game but a blind referee made the difference.

    1. The NFL wanted an LA team in the Super Bowl.

      1. One Super Bowl dud over the last decade was Seattle’s beat down of the Broncos five years ago. Other than that, all of them since the Steelers / Cards were very good or better.

        1. Steelers Cards was a good game. I didn’t see the Packers Steelers. i was overseas and it was on at like 3 am. Was that one any good?

          1. Yeah, it was pretty exciting.

        2. I am a Seahawks fan so loved that game. Especially as I get tired of people bad mouthing Wilson.

    2. Rams had a chance to tie, but the receiver did not complete the catch. Earlier, Goff was waaayyy late on a wide open. You can’t do that with the Patriots.

      1. Goff threw the ball late on purpose so the Patriots would win.

        /John

        1. Goff threw late because Brady used his super powers to force him to throw late.
          /Get To Da Chippah and Damisek.

          1. Actually, Goff threw late because he’s still a young QB and it was a high pressure situation in the highest pressure game of the season. He’ll probably get better with experience.

            1. I could agree with that, although if they had started passing on 1st and second down earlier rather than run run pass punt like they did all the first half he wouldn’t have had to throw deep as much. And if his line had given him time to find receivers.

              1. That’s certainly a possibility, but IMO both defenses played well beyond expectations.

                1. Both teams played excellent defense but it didn’t hurt the Patriots that for the entire first half you knew exactly what the Rams were going to do on first and second down, and that resulted in the Rams constantly being in 3rd and long allowing the Patriots blitzers to be much more effective. It was as bad as what my Seahawks did against the Cowboys during wildcard weekend. With the same result

      2. +1. You don’t get many chances against the Pats, and in the big games they kill you when you miss. That’s why they have all those rings.

  11. However, when it comes to ratings, Super Bowl LIII is not one anyone’s going to want to brag about. Shown on CBS for the first time since 2016 and with ad spots going for around $5 million each, the Rams’ loss scored a 44.9/68 in metered market results.

    To put that in the starkest light of day, that’s a dip of more than 5% from Super Bowl LII February 4, 2018 on NBC in the first round of ratings. On a larger playing field and amidst a call for a boycott of the game due to the league’s “racist” treatment of Colin Kaepernick, Sunday’s metered market result is the worst the Super Bowl has done in the early numbers since the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Arizona Cardinals on February 1, 2009.

  12. “One view of it is to marvel at, and celebrate, the hard work, risk-taking, and skill that produced the achievement. ”

    Let’s not forget the good ole cheating. As best portrayed by Cartman in South Park (How do I reach these kieeedzz?)

    BTW don’t let Tommy Dearest hold your phone…he might drop it in the pool.

  13. The Patriots victory only proves Belichick and Brady cut a pretty good deal out at the crossroads. You can no more resent that than you would any businessman successful because of a handshake with the Devil. Maybe a socialist like AOL is churlish enough to decry a bargain with satanic evil, but true capitalists are made of sterner stuff.

    (Plus, I’m convinced Brady has a picture in his attic which ages while he never grows older)

    1. It probably does not hurt that for most of his early career all Brady had to do was whine and he’d get a roughing the passer call. Defenses were afraid to hit him. I wonder if he’d still be playing if defenses could hit him like the were allowed to in the 80s and 90s?

  14. The Patriots are the turd in the toilet bowl that, no matter how many times you flush, just won’t go down the drain.

    1. In Soviet NFL, turd flush you!

  15. It’s a bit like less successful companies complaining about the market power of Facebook, Google, and Amazon […]

    If by “less successful companies”, you mean “Reason commentators”.

  16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGNr3Yef-2A

    The NFL forced the Colts to run a bizarre ‘trick’ punt play to make the Patriots look good.

  17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82RIfy-gRa4

    Roger Goodell personally ordered Mark Sanchez to run into his own lineman’s ass and fumble the ball.

  18. http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-…..hree-times

    Even before Goodell was around, Peyton Manning was instructed to pretend Ty Law played for the Colts.

  19. Its a well known fact that the entire league was warned not to draft Tom Brady until the Patriots got around to doing it in the sixth round.

    /John

    1. You think you are being clever, but no one has made any of the arguments you are ridiculing. What people have stated is that Brady has received a plethora of preferential calls for most of his career. Pointing out a few plays that do nothing to contradict this claim doesn’t disprove anything. Nor does the fact that he was drafted late prove anything. There are a number of great players who for one reason or another are drafted late or not drafted at all. And a number of first round picks that never live up to their hype. I am a life long Seahawks fan, I remember Bosworth and Meiers.

      1. On the other hand, you have Doug Baldwin, who wasn’t drafted and Steve Largent who was drafted in the 4th round.

      2. Actually, John has repeatedly LIED about a play in particular which he was using as evidence to support his claim. He continued to LIE about it even after I linked to video proving his claim to be false. He has posted that the NFL wanted an LA team in the Super Bowl as a reason for the botched PI call in the NFC Championship game. That’s tinfoil hat levels of dumb, and it deserves to be mocked.

      3. Re: botched calls: They happen all the time, and I would definitely need to see conclusive evidence that such calls benefit the Patriots more often than not in any statistically significant sense. Many –if not most– calls are subjective (PI, holding, roughing, etc.), as are the reactions of fans watching.

        What started that is the Tuck Rule game, which was not a bad call; it was the proper call on a bad rule. Not the Patriots’ fault the rule was written the way it was, and the rule was changed the following year. Nobody on the rules’ committee plotted to keep the rule in there until it helped the Patriots win a game, yet that’s what haters would have you think.

        I think Gronkowski gets held and/or interfered with on many more plays than penalties are actually called, and I think he also commits more offensive PIs than are called on him. The “Helmet Catch” in the first Pats/Giants Super Bowl should have been an “in the grasp” sack, IMO, but it wasn’t called. I think Jared Goff should have been called for intentional grounding in this past Super Bowl in the end zone, which should have been a safety. Wasn’t called.

        1. Also, in the Patriots’ second Super Bowl loss to the Giants, the player I find most at fault in that game was Brady. He threw to nobody while standing in his own end zone, resulting in a (properly called) safety (probably due to a receiver running the wrong route, but still…), and the so-called “Welker Drop” was a poorly thrown ball on Brady’s part, as Welker was open enough to hit him in the numbers. Take that safety away, and the Patriots are playing for a field goal to win on their last drive instead of needing a touchdown.

          But them’s the breaks.

          1. I agree with the Weller drop, it was completely Brady’s fault. That is one of the reasons I dislike Brady so much. That and his attitude just rubs me wrong. Ive thought that since 2001 when I didn’t even really know who he was. The first interview with him he just struck me as such a vain asshole. His smile just makes him look so cocky. I used to not like Peyton Manning either but he eventually earned my respect. Brady never has. And it isn’t just Brady, I feel the same level of loathing for Rodgers (who I definitely consider overrated) and Ben Rothlisberger. Rothlisberger I feel has gotten away with a lot of shit he shouldn’t have, i.e. the rape accusations.

        2. The Patriots consistently are among the least penalized teams per game (this year they had the least penalties per game). They also have one of the largest disparaging between penalties called against them and penalties called against their opponents. For example, it seems odd that the Rams had 20 penalties while the Patriots has two. Why is this so odd, while guess who was number two in least penalties per game this season? The LA Rams, barely behind the Patriots, in fact a near statistical tie. It seems pretty inconsistent that two teams with similar averages would have such a disparagy in penalties when playing against each other. Sports writers have questioned this, as have a number of former professional players and coaches. It could be that the Patriots are just that disciplined, but for 18 years seems to stretch the imagination. I am not saying the NFL has done this on purpose but they also haven’t tried to correct it. And it’s not just the Patriots, there are a few other teams that seemed to be favored by this one sided calling. Overall, I think NFL officiating is getting worse rather than better and the one sided calling is getting worse. Goodell refuses to do anything meaningful to correct the bad officiating and this past season has got to be the worst.

          1. Man, my typing, which is never great was worse tonight then normal.

          2. Belichick was head coach of the Browns for a few years in the 90s before they moved to Baltimore. If that team were among the least penalized in the league when he coached, then the conspiracy might be flawed. If the Giants and Patriots had fewer defensive penalties when Belichick was defensive coordinator, it further goes away. Some teams are undisciplined (Seattle under Pete Carrol, for example.)

          3. Also, what’s your source on your stats?

            http://www.nflpenalties.com/

            This site shows New England with 111 penalties against in 19 games this season — 5.8 flags per game.
            Tennessee has 82 flags against in 16 games — 5.2 flags per game. I’m not calling it definitive, just curious.

            1. The site I looked at stated 4.27 per game. I really don’t remember which it was. You keep stating conspiracy but I have stated multiple times I don’t think it is a conspiracy. I think it is an unconscious bias. As for your argument about the Seahawks, possibly but there does seem to be a lot of one sided calling against them too. I am sorry but I have watched the Seahawks get flagged forbholding, doing the exact same thing the other team was doing and not being called. If you can’t see that the officiating bin the NFL sucks and Goodell refuses to do anything about it, you are being will fully ignorant. Notice I never stated it was a conspiracy. Stop beating that strawman.

        1. Reposting the same article over and over doesn’t prove you have any ability to debate or counter the facts. You are linking to bone persons opinion over and over.

    2. You joke, but 6th round is not a premiere quarterback draft slot, it is a perpetual backup slot. Nobody thought Brady would have this career 19 years ago, including the Patriots.

  20. My personal opinion is that I feel like the Rams pretty stellar defense was let down by a very poor performance by their offense and by their coaches inability to make the correct adjustments early enough. Neither team looked like a Superbowl champion, and I’m a fan of good defenses and defensive games.

  21. Basically, the author says that if you begrudge the Patriots their latest win, you are a socialist whiny dog. C’mon. Really?
    I do think they were a better team, although I rooted for the Rams, but they just couldn’t score.
    There is No lack of bitching on the internet about the game, the commercials, the half time show… to my eyes this article is more bitching. I don’t begrudge the Patriots their win, but if you hate them, I take that at face value. I don’t then conclude that you are an anti-liberty asshat who wants to make the world mediocre.

    1. Neither teams offense was all that great, both teams defenses were outstanding. The Patriots won but it was just a boring game with few things to get excited about. There wasn’t any real suspense because the Rams offense looked unable to do anything from their first offensive snap. Despite the low score it just never felt like the Rams had a shot. There also wasn’t any real compelling story, unless you were a Tom Brady fan.
      One of the reasons I dislike the Patriots is because the majority of Patriots fans I’ve known personally are complete and utter asshats. But that is a personal thing (that and they beat the Dolphins in the NFC championship game in 1986).

      1. Oh and Collingsworth personally gives them fellatio any times he announces for them and I can’t stand that sycophantic asshole.

      2. I definitely feel that the worst thing about the Pats is their fans.

  22. “complaining about the market power of Facebook, Google, and Amazon”

    I would suggest that the author of this piece try to start his own Google, Facebook, or Amazon in their own core markets of search, social media, or shopping and distribution.

    After he fails, he can explain to us the basis of his inferiority.

    The rest of us can note that if you wanted to start your own Google, Facebook, or Amazon, even if you were not in fact inferior, the fact that these companies already exist and have “market power” makes it very difficult to compete with them in the markets they occupy.

    Instead of worshipping market incumbents for their so-called genius, we should instead analyze the structural factors that do or do not enable them to maintain that position.

    Here is another point. Envy is good. We should realize to a significant extent, we are in fact playing a zero sum game. This is illustrated by the fact that growth goes overwhelmingly to the top, rather than to the middle or the bottom.

    It would be NICE if we weren’t playing a zero sum game. But nice is not reality.

    1. Less than 20 years ago, Facebook was unheard of and MySpace was all the rage.

      Google has been around awhile, but they didn’t invent themselves in a no-search-engine vacuum, and they also don’t hold a monopoly, especially in the big emerging Asian markets.

      Amazon may be king today, but Sir Richard Branson built the Virgin empire with mail order.

      There is absolutely nothing preventing any startup from competing in these fields. And if they actually do arise to the level of presenting a threat to these giants, there is almost certainly a generous buyout offer in their future.

      1. Nothing last forever. At the same time, these incumbents do have market power, reinforced by intellectual property.

        This isn’t all about “merit” or whatever else you might foolishly think it is all about.

  23. “I will say, though, that as a Massachusetts native and sports fan who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, I used to feel about the Yankees a bit the way a lot of people now feel about the Patriots. My views on the matter of excessive winning in sports have evolved along with improvements in both the Red Sox and the Patriots.”

    Unlike the NFL, there is no salary cap in MLB, just a weak “luxury tax” on the couple of teams with the highest payroll that doesn’t kick in until they are spending several times what the team with the lowest payroll is spending. Just look at the gap between the top of the MLB in payroll (the author basically admitted to being a Red Sox fan – $220million as of now) and the bottom (my own Tampa Bay Rays – $47 million). https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

    In fact, look at the whole list and tell me which teams have consistently been in the playoff picture over the last dozen years or so, and then see if they are in the top half or the bottom half?

    If the NFL is a meritocracy, where winning is a matter of skill and intelligence, the MLB is a case of being able to buy your way to winning.

    (As a Rays fan, I maintain my loyalty through the down seasons because they have so often outperformed their payroll, even if they haven’t made the playoffs since the Maddon era.)

    1. “the MLB is a case of being able to buy your way to winning.”

      I dunno. It’s true that the top teams tend to have the highest salary levels, but in recent memory the Yankees have broken the bank trying to get back on top and haven’t gotten there yet. Takes more than a big bank account.

  24. “Rather than be impressed by the genius or excellence that led to the business success or the accumulation of wealth, there’s an impulse to attack the outcome as evidence of some sort of flaw in the system.”

    To the extent that a given billionaire can rightly claim their own genius or excellence as leading to their success, as they struggled through a level playing field to “win”, then it would seem reasonable that they get the lion’s share of the rewards for that success. But playing devil’s advocate, I think that the class envy behind the anti-billionaire politics really gets down to just how much money we are talking about.

    Once someone is worth a billion dollars, what more could they want that they can’t already buy? Travel, beautiful large homes in multiple locations, people to do things for you, like cooking, cleaning, driving, etc., so that you don’t have to are practically trivial expenses. You can buy the best of everything, and so on. The “99%”, as the progressives call those that aren’t very rich, simply can’t imagine why a person would want more than a billion dollars. What is the point of becoming even more wealthy than that? So that you can personally buy a sports team? Have a personal collection of paintings by the great masters? That is feeding ego and vanity more than anything else. Perhaps you would want to accumulate even greater wealth to make your mark as one of history’s great philanthropists and do good with that money.

    1. Keep in mind, getting that rich is very rarely going to be something someone does even mostly on their own. Obama got a rise out of the free marketers with his “You didn’t build that” remark, but he had a point. For every entrepreneur, there are many, many people employed by that entrepreneur actually making the visionary’s plans happen. Just how big of a piece of a business’s pie should go to the one at the top?

      Ordinary working people are feeling like they aren’t getting ahead, yet the capitalists are increasing their wealth consistently. People of different ideologies can get the numbers that they want when it comes to analyzing labor’s share of economic growth in the last few decades, but no one can deny the perception that it is shrinking.

      A big part of Trump’s appeal was based on speaking to right-leaning voters that feel exactly that. Blaming immigrants for taking their jobs was a populist tactic, as was blaming ‘horrible’ trade deals, but it played well to a segment of the Republican primary electorate. (Then, once he was the nominee, the rest of the Republican base convinced themselves that he’d at least be better than Hillary.) Today’s progressives and socialists in the Democratic Party took a lesson from Trump, though they are putting the blame for this same problem of working-class and middle-class stagnation on the wealthy.

      1. In conclusion, I see this anti-billionaire movement as being a crisis of capitalism. Just like we are in a crisis of faith in most of our institutions in this country, people are losing their trust that capitalism will help them get ahead, or even keep them where they are, in some cases. As mostly libertarians, I expect that people around here are eager to defend capitalism, and I, for my part, am no socialist. I am a pragmatist, and I am skeptical of all ideologies.

        To get that faith in capitalism back, you are going to need to convince people that the wealthy are not using the power that their wealth generates to control the levers of government to further their own interests. It isn’t enough to point out the flaws of progressive and socialist thinking and policy.

  25. The libertarian way to level the playing field would be to expand the number of teams. This would, of course, require expanding the number of conferences, and perhaps require the introduction of divisions. The best of 32 is essentially (people celebrating/being mad about) an artificial market cap.

  26. I am making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people say to me how much money they can make connected so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my existence. This is what I do?. http://www.Mesalary.com

  27. Perhaps, then, the way to cure Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of their socialism is to make them billionaires.

    Well, thank goodness getting elected to Congress is a good first step on that path.

  28. Oh please. It was just a fucking football game. Get a grip.

  29. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

    So I started….>>>>>>>> http://www.Mesalary.com

  30. As someone who despises professional sports (but supports non-professional level sports) as it represents an overly paid industry that does more harm then good to kids by placing too much emphasis on athletics over intelligence I am against any attempt to force equity or anything like it on the industry. Its no damned politicians business how the teams operate as long as they are doing so legally.

    These same corked politicians have no problem bribing professional teams with newly constructed citizen funded stadiums but you let there be the slightest hint of success that puts one team above the rest and its as if hell was on earth.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.