The thing I find interesting is how fast most of the politicians flip flop when they see votes as their reward. I mean in the ‘good old days’ cough cough a Conservative party politician did not even suggest more government regulation much less vote for it.

(11-03-2021 01:01 PM)McNavia93 Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 11:53 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  I thought Republicans were the party of less government, keeping the government out of your business, respecting the Constitutional responsibilities of Federalism and limited government?

So, creating a new responsibility of Federal oversight over a not for profit entity that deals in college athletics why?

Some things suck. But, IMO (and certainly true Conservatives should believe) it's not the Federal government's responsibility to butt into everything that sucks.

They sure as hell can butt in when the institutions involved receive federal funding.

And primarily interstate commerce, which is what lets the federal government in the door vs. the states themselves.

(11-03-2021 01:56 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 01:20 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 12:51 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  welp....to be honest, people are already polarized to the max. Sometimes there are triggers that set that off. But it doesn't take much of a trigger these days. lol

True.
But I would say even 30 years ago, that if you haughtily looked down your nose and called someone else a hypocrite, that it still had that triggering effect.

well yeah..... but in the 'olden' days it was easier to interpret someone's intent because it was up close and personal. These days people read haughtiness into mere posts that maybe weren't meant to be haughty...just because there's already a trigger there. lol

riiiggghhht
his post was not "meant" to be haughty
as he is one of the most humble and get-along guys on the board
but i'm the know it all, lol

(11-03-2021 02:48 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 12:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 02:51 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  I just think it ridiculous that the FEDERAL Government needs to get oversight over a not for profit member group

that's cute
Emmert, is that you?

(11-02-2021 08:00 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:   “Non profit”

The check is in the mail!

I hope both of you are being intentionally obtuse and understand what a nonprofit is.

Otherwise, you look dumb.

I know a little about nonprofit, lol.
The point is your stance of hiding behind the non-profit shield, when NCAA athletics is in reality big business banking big money paying big salaries and helping no athletes.

(11-03-2021 06:04 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 02:48 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 12:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 02:51 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  I just think it ridiculous that the FEDERAL Government needs to get oversight over a not for profit member group

that's cute
Emmert, is that you?

(11-02-2021 08:00 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:   “Non profit”

The check is in the mail!

I hope both of you are being intentionally obtuse and understand what a nonprofit is.

Otherwise, you look dumb.

I know a little about nonprofit, lol.
The point is your stance of hiding behind the non-profit shield, when NCAA athletics is in reality big business banking big money paying big salaries and helping no athletes.

Well you must just know a little, because your statement was ignorant.

I wasn't "hiding" behind nonprofits.

It was literally a descriptor of the status of the entity ( a voluntary nonprofit association where members agreed to bylaws which allow the entity to which the belong to regulate their behavior) and how silly it is for Congress to exercise Article I authority regarding the enforcement phase over that group.

If you wanna get pissy because I noted that right of center people generally live by "less government intrusion" (and I live by that) yet are proud to put forth this legislation, that's a beef with Dave. Not me.

(11-03-2021 05:57 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 01:56 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 01:20 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 12:51 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  welp....to be honest, people are already polarized to the max. Sometimes there are triggers that set that off. But it doesn't take much of a trigger these days. lol

True.
But I would say even 30 years ago, that if you haughtily looked down your nose and called someone else a hypocrite, that it still had that triggering effect.

well yeah..... but in the 'olden' days it was easier to interpret someone's intent because it was up close and personal. These days people read haughtiness into mere posts that maybe weren't meant to be haughty...just because there's already a trigger there. lol

riiiggghhht
his post was not "meant" to be haughty
as he is one of the most humble and get-along guys on the board
but i'm the know it all, lol

I don't "get along" any more or less than you do.

If YOU disagree with someone you let it known.

But actually in this thread I initially wasn't @ anyone other than noting a theoretical inconsistency by a politician.

(11-03-2021 07:26 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 05:57 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 01:56 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 01:20 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 12:51 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  welp....to be honest, people are already polarized to the max. Sometimes there are triggers that set that off. But it doesn't take much of a trigger these days. lol

True.
But I would say even 30 years ago, that if you haughtily looked down your nose and called someone else a hypocrite, that it still had that triggering effect.

well yeah..... but in the 'olden' days it was easier to interpret someone's intent because it was up close and personal. These days people read haughtiness into mere posts that maybe weren't meant to be haughty...just because there's already a trigger there. lol

riiiggghhht
his post was not "meant" to be haughty
as he is one of the most humble and get-along guys on the board
but i'm the know it all, lol

I don't "get along" any more or less than you do.

If YOU disagree with someone you let it known.

But actually in this thread I initially wasn't @ anyone other than noting a theoretical inconsistency by a politician.

Fine.
I do disagree with some here.
Inconsistency noted.

Back to the OP. I'm a conservative "less government" - and I endorse oversight of the NCAA. The Fourth Estate has unsuccessfully tried to drive accountability and transparency with the NCAA for years. It's time to escalate it.

Fair enough.

(11-03-2021 03:33 PM)BamaTigerCub Wrote:  Yes, of course, oversight of college athletics is what our polarized government needs to be focused on with all of the other issues we are facing (especially our planet’s health).

Just keep hide behind the curtain. Nothing to see here folks. Keep moving along.

Because they still have a country to run and two million employees to do it.