Obama? Orrin?

A new epithet is born.

Excellent.

I'd like to point out, Don. That this will be for those who accept. submit, and cooperate. My opinion, often expressed here, is that the shackles already exist, though they are light and offer some degree of comfort, they are strong enough to contain and yank when circumstances demand it.

The shackles for those who rebel, resist, and and are uncooperative will not be velvet-lined, nor will they any longer be light and comfortable.

There is only one alternative to doing it their way.

Our goals, our dreams, our desires, our knowledge, our beliefs, all became irrelevant upon total democrat (socialist) domination of two branches of government, leaving the third and powerless one to be gathered in with time.

Barring taking the only other alternative to surrender, I believe we need to get used to it because they have time and power now to ensure that all future elections maintain that domination, and the MSM will glorify them for it.

Yes, it can happen here.

Fascism
Totalitarianism
Autocracy

Interestingly, a little over 100 years ago, football was the subject of federal attentions-wasn't it one Teddy Roosevelt (also a repellent tyrant who love meddling) that involved himself in the elimination of the "flying wedge" formation due to its high fatality rate?

Now we just don't like the outcome of the game…

At least there, one could plausibly make the case it was a matter of public safety-so long as you overlooked the issue of deficient safety equipment.

You've stumbled upon a decades old (who knows perhaps a centuries old) truism in American society.

I've long observed the unique relationship Americans have with socialism. On one hand they use the term as short-hand for "evil". And yet, many of the most successful American businesses have been socially supported for decades.

The obvious ones have been the auto industry (all those socially paid for roads), the aerospace industry, the defence industries, and my personal favorite, professional sports franchises.

I have remarked for decades that the United States prefers socialism for its businesses and capitalism for its social programs, a description that even well educated American friends had trouble understanding ("Building a new stadium for "Team X" with public funds isn't socialism, Dave. It's popular and was voted on.").

Now, thanks to you I have a name for one half of that equation. What do we call the capitalism approach to social programs?

Vidyohs: I think it's Orrin hatching some college football policy

JohnK: nice picture. This one works, too.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22580