congress trying to pass law to force college football playoff

[jnorty]

at first i thought this was a joke but its not. we're a in a full socialist country.



DECEMBER 5, 2009.House Helps to Pick College Football No. 1 .ArticleComments (10)more in Politics ».EmailPrinter
FriendlyShare:
facebook ↓ More.
.StumbleUponDiggTwitterYahoo! BuzzFarkRedditLinkedIndel.icio.usMySpaceSave This ↓ More.
. Text .By JOHN D. MCKINNON
WASHINGTON -- House lawmakers are gearing up for a vote as soon as next week on a bill aimed at forcing a national college-football playoff.

Approval of the legislation by an Energy and Commerce subcommittee would represent the most significant action yet by Congress in its oversight of college football. Plans for a markup next week, still tentative as of late Friday, appeared to signal growing congressional support for the idea, which President Barack Obama also backed during the 2008 campaign.

For the past decade or so, the process of picking a national champion has been run by the Bowl Championship Series, a group that began with six major college conferences and has since expanded. The BCS runs a ranking system that picks the two teams that play for the national championship each year.

Prior to the BCS's involvement, the national champion was effectively chosen by polls following year-end bowl games. The BCS was designed to eliminate some of the controversy that inevitably swirled around that process. But the BCS system's congressional critics charge that the system frequently is unfair to college teams that aren't traditional powerhouses.

Earlier this year, for example, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch held a hearing on the BCS after his home state Utah Utes went undefeated yet were denied a chance to play for the national championship.

The House legislation, also sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas), among others, wouldn't specifically bar the title game, but would bar marketing of the BCS game as a national championship match.

BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said on Friday: "With everything going on in the country right now, doesn't Congress have more important things to do?"

 

[Lethn]

All this does is make me want to stay away from America more and more. I was actually considering living there as a resident a few years ago because of the awesome friends I had there but now I doubt that's going to happen.

Switzerland and Direct Democracy forever! Though then again the bailouts being planned aren't looking favourable at all for that country either

 

[PlusMinus]

Quote from Lethn:

All this does is make me want to stay away from America more and more. I was actually considering living there as a resident a few years ago because of the awesome friends I had there but now I doubt that's going to happen.

Switzerland and Direct Democracy forever! Though then again the bailouts being planned aren't looking favourable at all for that country either

Direct democracy can lead to tyrany by the majority. Our founding fathers had it right with democratic republic, the problem is that SCOTUS has allowed POTUS and Congress to shit all over the Constitution since the 1800s. Switzerland could never be a super power like the US and succeed as long as we have, because it is not a free country, due to direct democracy. We have our deep flaws, and they need to be addressed, but direct democracy is not the answer.

 

[Lethn]

That's funny because if you actually bothered to look it up you'd realize that it only takes 50,000 citizens to sign a referendum that can stop a minor law being passed and 100,000 citizens to make a change to the constitution. I hardly consider that the 'tyranny' of the majority.

This is the kind of thing where while I respect what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish with the constitution I start vaguely despising them particularly with their age discrimination against anyone under 35 becoming a president. The only time there is a 'tyrrany' among the majority is out of ignorance as seen with the corporatism that has spread across many western countries. There is no point in having a full and free Democracy at all if you aren't even willing to begin to believe in it in the first place.

I'd also like to point out that if America was under the Swiss system of Direct Democracy the population could have quite easily stopped the bailout bills in their tracks several times over especially with the amount of influence people like Ron Paul have.

 

[PlusMinus]

Quote from Lethn:

That's funny because if you actually bothered to look it up you'd realize that it only takes 50,000 citizens to sign a referendum that can stop a minor law being passed and 100,000 citizens to make a change to the constitution. I hardly consider that the 'tyranny' of the majority.

This is the kind of thing where while I respect what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish with the constitution I start vaguely despising them particularly with their age discrimination against anyone under 35 becoming a president. The only time there is a 'tyrrany' among the majority is out of ignorance as seen with the corporatism that has spread across many western countries. There is no point in having a full and free Democracy at all if you aren't even willing to begin to believe in it in the first place.

I'd also like to point out that if America was under the Swiss system of Direct Democracy the population could have quite easily stopped the bailout bills in their tracks several times over especially with the amount of influence people like Ron Paul have.

You assume what I know and don't know. Don't assume. The point is that the Swiss just enacted an example of tyrrany right before our very eyes. How qell would Direct democracy work with 300 million people? Like I sais, term limits are the answer. I have no problems with limitinglegislators to reasonable age requirements. Next you'll tell us that requiring presidents to be natural born is racist. It's just silly.

 

[Lethn]

I never assume anything the majority of the time but considering the fact you never bothered to point out any facts with your ignorant comment you were trying to disguise as fact. I think it's fairly safe to say that you don't know anything if you haven't bloody said anything to back it up.

And no, what you are describe is political correctness, not tyrrany, if you didn't read the article properly either you'd notice that the article never really gave any of the reasoning behind banning them so we cannot claim anything on either side. For instance how do we know they simply didn't want freaking Minarets that glow in the dark and block out the sky?

They weren't exactly saying "We hate muslims and mosques so gtfo" now were they? Also yes, I consider an age limit to becoming president age discrimination. There are a number of leaders throughout history who were younger than that when they tried conquering the whole damn world. I also have observed that politicians are scared shitless of young people because they know they'll happily vote differently if they're pissed off with a party or leader.

In fact, the UK Youth parliament made the real parliament look like the complete morons they are when they came to have a debate inside of parliament so what does that say about peoples' vaunted idea of age meaning wisdom and experience?