Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Probably a violation of the 10th amendment, but after ACA, who knows.
    I would be more worried about the Supreme Court basically saying a corporation has rights like regular citizens, which probably would some how lead to them being able to kill any bill to curb the public contribution to these monster stadiums.

    Things are just going to get worse until cities do not stand up to these teams. Every team is going to want bigger and better and just become an arm race of stadiums.

    I am sure nothing will change because many fans cannot look past their fandom to see their state and city getting screwed, we are a corporate welfare country, and the pro leagues have deeper pockets and will probably just buy the politicians they need to kill whatever comes up.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

      Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
      I would be more worried about the Supreme Court basically saying a corporation has rights like regular citizens, which probably would some how lead to them being able to kill any bill to curb the public contribution to these monster stadiums.

      Things are just going to get worse until cities do not stand up to these teams. Every team is going to want bigger and better and just become an arm race of stadiums.

      I am sure nothing will change because many fans cannot look past their fandom to see their state and city getting screwed, we are a corporate welfare country, and the pro leagues have deeper pockets and will probably just buy the politicians they need to kill whatever comes up.
      The fact that corporations have rights isn't a factor hear. Nowhere do corporations have a right to the public coffers.

      The 10th ammendment thing is an issue but the 10th amendment has been losing strength since the Civil War.

      You could disguise it differently if there is a problem. No federal subsidies for any city or state government that uses public money to build a Stadium. Boom done.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

        Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
        I would be more worried about the Supreme Court basically saying a corporation has rights like regular citizens, which probably would some how lead to them being able to kill any bill to curb the public contribution to these monster stadiums.
        Corporations don't. The people that own the corporations do.

        Joew touched on it, but this really isn't any different than a state/local government giving companies tax breaks in order to re-locate to their area. If Indy isn't willing, there will probably be another city that is. So you either play the game, or be forced to sit on the sidelines, like Seattle.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Corporations don't. The people that own the corporations do.

          Joew touched on it, but this really isn't any different than a state/local government giving companies tax breaks in order to re-locate to their area. If Indy isn't willing, there will probably be another city that is. So you either play the game, or be forced to sit on the sidelines, like Seattle.
          Its one thing to give a company tax breaks to bring in jobs, its another thing to give them such ridiculous tax breaks that its a net loss for the city. So It is different in that regard.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

            Is it? PSE&E bring in a bunch of jobs. From security, to concession workers, to ushers. Not only does PS&E employee people, it also brings in revenue for the city for resturants, shopping, etc. I live an hour away from Indy, and the 90% time I spend money there is when we go to sport events.

            The city also gives PS&E money, because it allows them to hold the Big Ten tourney. LOS allows them to have the Superbowl, NCAA tourney every 5 years, countless conventions, etc.

            I guarantee Indy brings in more $$ than they give the Pacers/Colts.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Corporations don't. The people that own the corporations do.

              Joew touched on it, but this really isn't any different than a state/local government giving companies tax breaks in order to re-locate to their area. If Indy isn't willing, there will probably be another city that is. So you either play the game, or be forced to sit on the sidelines, like Seattle.
              Absolutely. Owners that move their teams are also gambling that the new location will be more advantageous to their interests. Sure you can pass laws which state that taxpayer money to fund stadiums is illegal, but you couldn't pass a law making an owner stay in a location.

              I am sure the board of governers in various sports could restrict an owner from moving, but that would set a bad precedent for their own mobility. Simply put, businessmen do not like to regulate other businessmen because the shoe could be on the other foot someday. Cities either play the game of taxing/spending on stadiums or risk losing their team. That stinks for some, but its just the way it is.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Is it? PSE&E bring in a bunch of jobs. From security, to concession workers, to ushers. Not only does PS&E employee people, it also brings in revenue for the city for resturants, shopping, etc. I live an hour away from Indy, and the 90% time I spend money there is when we go to sport events.

                The city also gives PS&E money, because it allows them to hold the Big Ten tourney. LOS allows them to have the Superbowl, NCAA tourney every 5 years, countless conventions, etc.

                I guarantee Indy brings in more $$ than they give the Pacers/Colts.
                You can guarantee it, doesn't make it true. Far to many studies are showing these stadium deals to be a net loss for the cities for it to be a guaranteed yes. And even if they do make more from the stadiums that doesn't mean its the best use of the money. Just because you make money from an investment doesn't mean its the best investment. You can make money from a T-Bill but there are better investments.

                Cities would be much better off giving jobs to teachers and fixing road/bridges.
                Last edited by Mad-Mad-Mario; 07-20-2015, 05:00 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

                  Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                  Absolutely. Owners that move their teams are also gambling that the new location will be more advantageous to their interests. Sure you can pass laws which state that taxpayer money to fund stadiums is illegal, but you couldn't pass a law making an owner stay in a location.

                  I am sure the board of governers in various sports could restrict an owner from moving, but that would set a bad precedent for their own mobility. Simply put, businessmen do not like to regulate other businessmen because the shoe could be on the other foot someday. Cities either play the game of taxing/spending on stadiums or risk losing their team. That stinks for some, but its just the way it is.
                  Yeah it would be incredibly rare that an owner could move his team to a completely new area and be more successful than they are currently with an establish fan base. Sure if they suck they might have a few better years just because they are new but that will eventually wear off wherever they go.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

                    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                    How on earth could you accomplish this? Unless an owner is bound by a contractual agreement, I can't see any way a city or state or bind an owner to keep a franchise in a specific location.
                    I never said they could. I never said anything about cities forcing teams to stay. I was just complaining about the current climate for cities to outbid each other in an attempt to lure a team away from their home city to a new city. Complete with a shiny new sports stadium and an even greater deal than they already have. And then that lure becomes leverage for the owners to use in their current city.
                    Unless it's stopped at a federal level, local governments can't just keep from getting involved in these bidding wars, corporate welfare, and giveaways of taxpayer money to billionaire team owners. And local governments are getting less and less in return. I mean we've already jumped the shark to where cities build these ever more expensive (and expansive) stadiums and now give away all of the profits and control of the venue for things that have no connection to the teams. Yet, willingly pay the operating expenses.

                    Rare indeed will be the city (or state) that just says "No". So there will be no local or state level laws to put this corporate welfare genie back in the bottle. That's why it can only happen at the national level where the feds have nothing to gain by teams moving and can see taxpayer money being squandered on these stadium deals.

                    I'm surprised local/state governments aren't working the backdoor to quietly push this issue nationally knowing that it's the only way to put the genie back in the bottle.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

                      Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                      You can guarantee it, doesn't make it true. Far to many studies are showing these stadium deals to be a net loss for the cities for it to be a guaranteed yes. And even if they do make more from the stadiums that doesn't mean its the best use of the money. Just because you make money from an investment doesn't mean its the best investment. You can make money from a T-Bill but there are better investments.

                      Cities would be much better off giving jobs to teachers and fixing road/bridges.
                      Sounds like you have a more principled objection to it than a numbers based one. Which considering I'm a fiscal conservative, I fully understand. But the cat is too far out of the bag to stuff it back in. I'm aware of some of the studies, but like this Forbes article I've noticed that they look at it from a tax revenue standpoint, as opposed to economic activity in the area.

                      It is easily possible (and in fact quite likely) that a new stadium will produce more in related economic activity than the cost of any public financing (even if a government pays for all the costs). However, it doesn’t matter if businesses take in more money than taxpayers shelled out to build the stadium; what matters is whether the taxes collected from all that activity are more than the up-front taxpayer cost. A visitor to the Super Bowl might spend $500 on an airplane ticket, $2000 on his hotel, $300 on food, plus $500 on the ticket to the game. That sounds like a lot of economic activity for just one visitor. However, the plane ticket generates roughly zero money for local and state governments (there may be some airport taxes but they will go toward running the airport). The hotel stay probably produces $200-250 in tax revenue, the restaurant bills another $20, and the game ticket another $35. That means the over $3000 in spending really amounts to around $300 in tax revenue.
                      I don't care how much the govt reaps in tax revenue, I care that the local businessman sees an uptick in his local business revenue as that's where jobs actually come from.




                      And considering private charter schools routinely kick the crap out of our massively funded public school systems, I'm not even sure that is the best way to spend tax money.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

                        Charter schools get to pick and choose who they take as students. Normal public schools don't. Furthermore, there is no evidence that charter schools perform better than normal schools. The whole "school choice" movement is about privatizing education and destroying teachers' unions. It isn't about improving education. The state of Indiana took over "failing" inner city schools and turned them over to for profit enterprises. Sickening.

                        If a government is going to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars on sports arenas they had damn well be concerned if it will pay off in increased tax revenues. That is basic common sense. Otherwise it is nothing more than a handout to the wealthy.

                        The jobs sports arenas generate are low wage, no benefits crap jobs.

                        Governments pay for the stadiums but the owner gets to keep all the revenue generated by the stadium. Scott Walker supported a $400 million taxpayer giveaway to fund the Bucks' stadium while rejecting federal funds to expand health insurance to poor people. Oh yeah, now the owner of the Bucks is working as Walker's national presidential campaign finance co-chairman.

                        In the end, spots arenas are vanity projects. Cities dole out the cash for a fancy toy while their infrastructure crumbles.
                        Last edited by hoosierguy; 07-21-2015, 10:56 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

                          Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                          Charter schools get to pick and choose who they take as students. Normal public schools don't. Furthermore, there is no evidence that charter schools perform better than normal schools. The whole "school choice" movement is about privatizing education and destroying teachers' unions. It isn't about improving education. The state of Indiana took over "failing" inner city schools and turned them over to for profit enterprises. Sickening.

                          If a government is going to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars on sports arenas they had damn well be concerned if it will pay off in increased tax revenues. That is basic common sense. Otherwise it nothing more than a handout to the wealthy.

                          The jobs sports arenas generate are low wage, no benefit crap jobs.
                          I am a public school teacher. The charter/private school education statistics vs. public school are apples to oranges. You mean students who have parents who want to put up thousands of dollars toward their child's education perform better than students with parents not as concerned on average? AMAZING! WHO KNEW? These statistics are often used to satisfy a political agenda.

                          As far as "providing low wage, crap jobs" I disagree. A job is valuable, no matter what it is doing. We can't complain about entitlements and such, then turn around and minimize jobs, however marginal you may think they are. Also, you are thinking in direct terms. What about indirectly? Event coordinators, hotel managers etc all benefit from a professional sports team. It is not just people who put cheese on your nachos.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

                            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                            I am a public school teacher. The charter/private school education statistics vs. public school are apples to oranges. You mean students who have parents who want to put up thousands of dollars toward their child's education perform better than students with parents not as concerned on average? AMAZING! WHO KNEW? These statistics are often used to satisfy a political agenda.

                            As far as "providing low wage, crap jobs" I disagree. A job is valuable, no matter what it is doing. We can't complain about entitlements and such, then turn around and minimize jobs, however marginal you may think they are. Also, you are thinking in direct terms. What about indirectly? Event coordinators, hotel managers etc all benefit from a professional sports team. It is not just people who put cheese on your nachos.
                            Many people who do work still rely on government welfare because their pay is so low they qualify for it and they can't make ends meet without it. Waiters, concession workers, hotel cleaning maids, etc all make terrible money.

                            In some cases, the people working concessions stands aren't even paid. The Buccanneers had homeless people working concessions stands who didn't receive a dime, only the ability to stay at a local shelter!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

                              Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                              Many people who do work still rely on government welfare because their pay is so low they qualify for it and they can't make ends meet without it. Waiters, concession workers, hotel cleaning maids, etc all make terrible money.

                              In some cases, the people working concessions stands aren't even paid. The Buccanneers had homeless people working concessions stands who didn't receive a dime, only the ability to stay at a local shelter!
                              My point is they are working. Given the state of our economy over the past decade we really are not in a position to marginalize any job or worker.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: John Oliver vs Tax Payer Funded Stadiums

                                Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                                Many people who do work still rely on government welfare because their pay is so low they qualify for it and they can't make ends meet without it. Waiters, concession workers, hotel cleaning maids, etc all make terrible money.

                                In some cases, the people working concessions stands aren't even paid. The Buccanneers had homeless people working concessions stands who didn't receive a dime, only the ability to stay at a local shelter!
                                The buying power of the dollar continues to downgrade due to govt inflicted penalties like inflation.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X