Big10 commissioner - Guilty until proven innocent

Lawboy wrote:
It is not slander when it is the truth. Can't slander a guy who said "the money was just too great" claiming he knew his dad was working a pay off. Try again. Spin it how you like, but when the FBI investigation comes out in full--after the trial of the dirty members of the Auburn family (Board of Trustees), you will be nowhere to be found. Newton will lose what he earned on the field with his great play because of his dirtiness off of it. Beleive it or not, some people actually beleive in fairness, equality and integrity.

snoscythe wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

The proper and just reaction to the use of force on the part of the NCAA and the universities is a comparable use of force against them. In the case of Cameron Newton (or any other college athlete) that includes breaking a contract not to receive any compensation for the services rendered. Thus Cameron Newton would be justified in receiving compensation even though he allegedly signed some contract stating that he would not.

The proper reaction is not to use force. Each institution knew the rules when they joined and have been part of the ongoing discussion since then. If rules are enacted that they cannot abide with and cannot get others to agree with them to change the only proper and just reaction is to leave the voluntary organization with which they have affiliated themselves with. There is absolutely zero support by any legitimate moral authority that breaking voluntary agreed to rules is a proper or just thing. If they were to leave the NCAA and the SEC and then pay Cam Newton, I would have no problem with that.

Once again you misinterpret my argument. I am referencing the player (and representative) and some alleged booster, not the university although if a member of a cartel recognizes they and their partners are acting in a suspect manner it is interesting to consider their moral duties. There is no question on the other hand that the player and booster, in their efforts to form another league are at a disadvantage relative the tax-supported institution. The government supports such a travesty of justice and so those at a disadvantage are free to use force to find justice.

This is where your argument just becomes absurd. You condone a person signing a contract without any intention of actually abiding by that contract? That is, in misrepresenting your intentions to your fellow man, that is, being dishonest in your dealings with your fellow man? Life is rough, the world is unfair, and secret combinations exist. That doesn't justify dishonesty to get a piece of the pie.

Mars wrote:

It is not slander when it is the truth. Can't slander a guy who said "the money was just too great" claiming he knew his dad was working a pay off. Try again. Spin it how you like, but when the FBI investigation comes out in full--after the trial of the dirty members of the Auburn family (Board of Trustees), you will be nowhere to be found. Newton will lose what he earned on the field with his great play because of his dirtiness off of it. Beleive it or not, some people actually beleive in fairness, equality and integrity.

Bingo.



The kid wanted to go to Mississippi State, badly. But his dad got a fat wad of cash from Auburn and told his son he had to go there. Son agreed. That makes the son complicit in the law-breaking. They should both see their lies burn down around them for this. The opposite view isn't anything else but wrong in this instance. Plain, flat-out off-base, evil, and dangerous.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
The proper and just reaction to the use of force on the part of the NCAA and the universities is a comparable use of force against them. In the case of Cameron Newton (or any other college athlete) that includes breaking a contract not to receive any compensation for the services rendered. Thus Cameron Newton would be justified in receiving compensation even though he allegedly signed some contract stating that he would not.

The proper reaction is not to use force. Each institution knew the rules when they joined and have been part of the ongoing discussion since then. If rules are enacted that they cannot abide with and cannot get others to agree with them to change the only proper and just reaction is to leave the voluntary organization with which they have affiliated themselves with. There is absolutely zero support by any legitimate moral authority that breaking voluntary agreed to rules is a proper or just thing. If they were to leave the NCAA and the SEC and then pay Cam Newton, I would have no problem with that.

Once again you misinterpret my argument. I am referencing the player (and representative) and some alleged booster, not the university although if a member of a cartel recognizes they and their partners are acting in a suspect manner it is interesting to consider their moral duties. There is no question on the other hand that the player and booster, in their efforts to form another league are at a disadvantage relative the tax-supported institution. The government supports such a travesty of justice and so those at a disadvantage are free to use force to find justice.

This is where your argument just becomes absurd. You condone a person signing a contract without any intention of actually abiding by that contract? That is, in misrepresenting your intentions to your fellow man, that is, being dishonest in your dealings with your fellow man? Life is rough, the world is unfair, and secret combinations exist. That doesn't justify dishonesty to get a piece of the pie.

Good try. Lies are acceptable in certain circumstances. This is one. If you are a spy misrepresenting yourself to obtain recon against an enemy using force against you in the first place is another. Sure, it doesn't fit in with your government worshiping ideology but that does not negate the argument

hawkwing wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

The proper and just reaction to the use of force on the part of the NCAA and the universities is a comparable use of force against them. In the case of Cameron Newton (or any other college athlete) that includes breaking a contract not to receive any compensation for the services rendered. Thus Cameron Newton would be justified in receiving compensation even though he allegedly signed some contract stating that he would not.

The proper reaction is not to use force. Each institution knew the rules when they joined and have been part of the ongoing discussion since then. If rules are enacted that they cannot abide with and cannot get others to agree with them to change the only proper and just reaction is to leave the voluntary organization with which they have affiliated themselves with. There is absolutely zero support by any legitimate moral authority that breaking voluntary agreed to rules is a proper or just thing. If they were to leave the NCAA and the SEC and then pay Cam Newton, I would have no problem with that.

Once again you misinterpret my argument. I am referencing the player (and representative) and some alleged booster, not the university although if a member of a cartel recognizes they and their partners are acting in a suspect manner it is interesting to consider their moral duties. There is no question on the other hand that the player and booster, in their efforts to form another league are at a disadvantage relative the tax-supported institution. The government supports such a travesty of justice and so those at a disadvantage are free to use force to find justice.

This is where your argument just becomes absurd. You condone a person signing a contract without any intention of actually abiding by that contract? That is, in misrepresenting your intentions to your fellow man, that is, being dishonest in your dealings with your fellow man? Life is rough, the world is unfair, and secret combinations exist. That doesn't justify dishonesty to get a piece of the pie.

Good try. Lies are acceptable in certain circumstances. This is one. If you are a spy misrepresenting yourself to obtain recon against an enemy using force against you in the first place is another. Sure, it doesn't fit in with your government worshiping ideology but that does not negate the argument

Man, you keep jumping around from weird, ill fitting analogy to even weirder less well fitting analogy. Just accept that you failed miserably on this and that a person has a moral obligation to do what they agree to do. If you honestly don't believe that a man should keep his word, there can really be no further discussion because law and order are paramount to a stable society.

hawkwing wrote:
Government sponsored institutions of learning are a gospel principle, as Joseph Smith taught.

jvquarterback wrote:

Plain and simple then: When someone deceives you and they control the government and evade punishment, you may deceive them.



By the way I am still awaiting your citation from the previous post (I am genuinely interested):

Government sponsored institutions of learning are a gospel principle, as Joseph Smith taught.

hawkwing wrote:

Plain and simple then: When someone deceives you and they control the government and evade punishment, you may deceive them.



By the way I am still awaiting your citation from the previous post (I am genuinely interested):

hawkwing wrote:
Government sponsored institutions of learning are a gospel principle, as Joseph Smith taught.

If you wish to read about Joseph Smith's opinions on education you can find some fascinating reading here: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/education/Attitudes_EOM.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not only did JS support public education, he opened a government operated, publicly funded university, as did Brigham Young and other modern day Prophets to the present time in several different countries, where they have to follow the laws of those countries.

hawkwing wrote:
The reason why you're simple argument fails so poorly is because you have never, once, proven that the NCAA has deceived anyone in terms of a player accepting money. The rules of the organization are clear and pretty simple to understand. Every organization that is a part of it has agreed to those rules and we haven't seen any shocking revelations about rules being different than what is printed.

jvquarterback wrote:

The reason why you're simple argument fails so poorly is because you have never, once, proven that the NCAA has deceived anyone in terms of a player accepting money. The rules of the organization are clear and pretty simple to understand. Every organization that is a part of it has agreed to those rules and we haven't seen any shocking revelations about rules being different than what is printed.

You are correct, the NCAA is very blatant about what it does -- I've shown that the government-owned NCAA institutions rob players by destroying their competitors. The players are entitled to take back (by deceit, if need be) what has been taken from them.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
The reason why you're simple argument fails so poorly is because you have never, once, proven that the NCAA has deceived anyone in terms of a player accepting money. The rules of the organization are clear and pretty simple to understand. Every organization that is a part of it has agreed to those rules and we haven't seen any shocking revelations about rules being different than what is printed.

You are correct, the NCAA is very blatant about what it does -- I've shown that the government-owned NCAA institutions rob players by destroying their competitors. The players are entitled to take back (by deceit, if need be) what has been taken from them.

No you haven't. Please show in a short and succinct post exactly how the government has lied (secretly burned down the building) with the NCAA. Don't ramble on with weird analogies or possibilities. Show facts and figures.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

The reason why you're simple argument fails so poorly is because you have never, once, proven that the NCAA has deceived anyone in terms of a player accepting money. The rules of the organization are clear and pretty simple to understand. Every organization that is a part of it has agreed to those rules and we haven't seen any shocking revelations about rules being different than what is printed.

You are correct, the NCAA is very blatant about what it does -- I've shown that the government-owned NCAA institutions rob players by destroying their competitors. The players are entitled to take back (by deceit, if need be) what has been taken from them.

No you haven't. Please show in a short and succinct post exactly how the government has lied (secretly burned down the building) with the NCAA. Don't ramble on with weird analogies or possibilities. Show facts and figures.

Well, let's just start with gate receipts and leave "charitable" giving aside. Here in Arizona, Arena league teams pay a 9.75% sales tax on ticket sales. In addition there are fees for any professional athletic event. The college teams don't pay them. Advantage colleges. There are many other advantages including taxes on land, construction, etc, etc.

In California there are no Arena League teams because they are forced to purchase worker's compensation packages the colleges do not.

Guess who actually gets money from those taxes -- the colleges that are the direct competition of the privately owned, tax-paying football team.

That is simple theft. And when someone steals from your employer with impunity, then tries to hire you at a lower rate, you are entirely justified in deceiving the thieving scoundrels who do such a thing. If you had the power (aka your own government) you would be justified in taking everything back they ever took from you, plus penalties and throwing them in jail. But if you don't you are justified in deceiving them to get back some part of what they have taken from you.

snoscythe wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
The reason why you're simple argument fails so poorly is because you have never, once, proven that the NCAA has deceived anyone in terms of a player accepting money. The rules of the organization are clear and pretty simple to understand. Every organization that is a part of it has agreed to those rules and we haven't seen any shocking revelations about rules being different than what is printed.

You are correct, the NCAA is very blatant about what it does -- I've shown that the government-owned NCAA institutions rob players by destroying their competitors. The players are entitled to take back (by deceit, if need be) what has been taken from them.

No you haven't. Please show in a short and succinct post exactly how the government has lied (secretly burned down the building) with the NCAA. Don't ramble on with weird analogies or possibilities. Show facts and figures.

Well, let's just start with gate receipts and leave "charitable" giving aside. Here in Arizona, Arena league teams pay a 9.75% sales tax on ticket sales. In addition there are fees for any professional athletic event. The college teams don't pay them. Advantage colleges. There are many other advantages including taxes on land, construction, etc, etc.

I think you have the wrong idea of what it means to be tax-exempt. I paid sales tax on my season tickets to Baylor football last season, and I paid sales tax on season tickets to University of Denver hoops this season. Sales tax and income tax are not the same things. Whether schools are sales tax exempt varies from state to state, but Texas and Colorado at least don't make ticket sales exempt. I don't remember whether BYU/Utah charge or pay tax on ticket sales, but the broad brush you are painting with here is just false.



As for taxes on "land, construction, etc.," you must be living under a rock. Any time a professional sports franchise decides they need a new facility, the local and state governments twist themselves into a knot trying not only to remove taxes from the project, but even to fund the new facilities with municipal and government bonds--direct taxes on the public to fund the new development. As a recent example, look at the new Cowboys stadium. Nearly half of that stadium comes from public coffers-- there's a 0.5% sales tax, a 2% hotel occupancy tax, and a car rental tax of 5% that do nothing but pay for that stadium. Add to that the $325 million in public bonds that were sold to fund the building, and you have government giving money to a for profit enterprise with no repayment required. How are you more angry about state funds buying state property?

In California there are no Arena League teams because they are forced to purchase worker's compensation packages the colleges do not.

The NCAA mandates medical coverage for student athletes, and the athletes are offered secondary/incidental coverage at deep discounts. I do like that you are using California as your ideal economic model though....

Guess who actually gets money from those taxes -- the colleges that are the direct competition of the privately owned, tax-paying football team.

I don't know of a single state that funds their colleges through income or sales tax revenue. Utah, Colorado, and Texas schools are funded by revenue from state land held in trust for that purpose(in Utah the School Institutional Trust Lands Administration).

That is simple theft. And when someone steals from your employer with impunity, then tries to hire you at a lower rate, you are entirely justified in deceiving the thieving scoundrels who do such a thing. If you had the power (aka your own government) you would be justified in taking everything back they ever took from you, plus penalties and throwing them in jail. But if you don't you are justified in deceiving them to get back some part of what they have taken from you.

Not only are the "facts" supporting your argument patently false, but your moral compass is completely out of whack. If someone is stealing from you, you have the legal vehicles to reclaim what is yours--you take them to court. I can't think of a single moral, legal, or religious principal that supports your conclusion here.