Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200...gs_on_ncaa_bill A local Congressman is trying to hold hearings on the issue; and he wants them held in Champaign. I know its an election year and this is far from certain, but at the very least the NCAA knows that the Illini fans aren't just rolling over, despite the actions of our administration.
ScottM Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200...gs_on_ncaa_bill A local Congressman is trying to hold hearings on the issue; and he wants them held in Champaign. I know its an election year and this is far from certain, but at the very least the NCAA knows that the Illini fans aren't just rolling over, despite the actions of our administration. Interesting. I wonder if one of the gutless wonders NoDak sent to DC would interested in joining in. Yeah, Earl, I'm looking at you ...
The Sicatoka Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Yeah, Earl, I'm looking at you ... Earl would need verbal permission from Jack Abramoff first, as would Kent. And Byron, he'd need written.
Goon Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200...gs_on_ncaa_bill A local Congressman is trying to hold hearings on the issue; and he wants them held in Champaign. I know its an election year and this is far from certain, but at the very least the NCAA knows that the Illini fans aren't just rolling over, despite the actions of our administration. I don't see this happening if the Dems take the house. Just a hunch.
ihatethegophers Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Dems won't take the house... thats debatable
Goon Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 thats debatable Its not looking real good for the GOP right now. I am crossing my fingers but I won't hold my breath waiting.
redwing77 Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Its not looking real good for the GOP right now. I am crossing my fingers but I won't hold my breath waiting. They said that in 2004. I'm not convinced that the GOP is truly in as much trouble as the media is making it out to be. We'll see tommorrow or early Wednesday I guess.
Goon Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 I'm not convinced that the GOP is truly in as much trouble as the media is making it out to be. We'll see tommorrow or early Wednesday I guess. I dunno, I know the polls don't look good but they aren't as bad as they were. From 2004 we all know what happens with exit poll data so we will have to see.
fightingsioux4life Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Earl would need verbal permission from Jack Abramoff first, as would Kent. And Byron, he'd need written. I hate to bring politics into a sports forum, but just remember that I didn't start it..... The Jack Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. It is not the fault of "the liberals" or "the media" or anyone else. It is why Tom Delay's political career is finished and why Conrad Burns is in serious trouble in Montana. And it is one of the major reasons the GOP is in trouble this year. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you control the House, Senate and White House at the same time, this is the type of stuff that happens. It hurt the Dems in 1994 and it's hurting the GOP in 2006. Prediction: Dems gain 20-30 seats in the House and take control; Dems gain 4 seats in Senate and GOP keeps control. It's back to divided government (the best kind of government, if you ask me). And remember to vote, whatever side you are on!!! GO AMERICA!!!
Goon Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why I am glad we are suing the NCAA because power has corrupted Myles Brand. This thread did go full circle...
mksioux Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 The Jack Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. Not completely. There are Democrat politicians tangled in that web as well, including North Dakota's to some extent. Did you even click on Sicatoka's link? The point of why this issue even came up was to give a plausible explanation why North Dakota's congressional delegation has been unwilling to do anything about the Sioux nickname issue. If you click on the links you get a pretty good reason why.
Goon Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Not completely. There are Democrat politicians tangled in that web as well, including North Dakota's to some extent. Did you even click on Sicatoka's link? The point of why this issue even came up was to give a plausible explanation why North Dakota's congressional delegation has been unwilling to do anything about the Sioux nickname issue. If you click on the links you get a pretty good reason why. If my math is right that is 28,000 bucks that Byron took from Abramoff.
fightingsioux4life Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Not completely. There are Democrat politicians tangled in that web as well, including North Dakota's to some extent. Did you even click on Sicatoka's link? The point of why this issue even came up was to give a plausible explanation why North Dakota's congressional delegation has been unwilling to do anything about the Sioux nickname issue. If you click on the links you get a pretty good reason why. I thought that our delegation gave back the money and/or didn't know that Abramoff was involved in criminal activity? My point was that most of the people involved were/are Republicans and because the GOP controls the House and Senate, most of the buck must stop with them. From a totally non-partisan point of view, there is a huge need for comprehensive, ethical and lobbying reform in both houses of Congress. But don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
The Sicatoka Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 ... there is a huge need for comprehensive, ethical and lobbying reform in .... Washington. Indianapolis. So, in the great and wise words of The Joker ...
GeauxSioux Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 From a totally non-partisan point of view, there is a huge need for comprehensive, ethical and lobbying reform in both houses of Congress. But don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. A move toward the Fair Tax would go a long way toward accomplishing that. Lobbyists would lose their influence to shape the tax code.
mksioux Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 I thought that our delegation gave back the money and/or didn't know that Abramoff was involved in criminal activity? They may have eventually given it back because of the Abramoff involvement, but I think the point is that they took money from various Indian groups and probably intend to do so again in the future (without Abramoff's involvement obviously). They probably don't want to step on any donors' toes with this nickname issue. This is all a moot point anwyay. This bill doesn't stand a chance in the new Democratic controlled House.
SiouxMeNow Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Earl would need verbal permission from Jack Abramoff first, as would Kent. And Byron, he'd need written. Show me a picture of Byron teeing off at St. Andrews with Jack and I'll buy it! Earl and Kents' contributions were chump change in that whole deal and if was you notice EVERY contribution was from an Indian tribe (but the last time I checked there were no Cherokees in ND!) to promote minority interests...ND's Congressional delegation wouldn't have been able to do much about this issue with "hearings" - it IS an issue that needs to be settled in a court of law.
SiouxMeNow Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Dems won't take the house... no...BOTH the house AND senate
SiouxMeNow Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 If my math is right that is 28,000 bucks that Byron took from Abramoff. that's about $27,998 less than the ND Republican Party spent on advertising for Mechtel and WHOEVER ran against Kent Conrad in the Senate race this year...was it Reimers?? I couldn't tell...the ND GOP phoned this election in BIG TIME! maybe that's who you need to blame...
Northcountry Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Interesting. I wonder if one of the gutless wonders NoDak sent to DC would interested in joining in. Yeah, Earl, I'm looking at you ... Do you consider yourself a conservative? Do you really believe that it is within the oversight function of Congress to micromanage to this degree? When I was young every time I said "there should be a law--", my Father said "No there shouldn't" - he was a conservative.
LB#11 Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Do you consider yourself a conservative? Do you really believe that it is within the oversight function of Congress to micromanage to this degree? When I was young every time I said "there should be a law--", my Father said "No there shouldn't" - he was a conservative. I get what you're saying Northcountry...but a little support from Earl Pomeroy on an issue that 90% of North Dakota supports isn't asking much...then again, it might be in the wacky world of politics.
ScottM Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Do you consider yourself a conservative? Do you really believe that it is within the oversight function of Congress to micromanage to this degree? When I was young every time I said "there should be a law--", my Father said "No there shouldn't" - he was a conservative. What does whether one is "conservative" or "liberal" or whatever label you subscribe to have to do with anything? Congress has hearings and investigations on a litany of issues, and most never result in any new bills, laws or Constitutional amendments. If anything, they shed light on possibly shady practices or inform people about issues that may concern them. If you're really bored, watch CSPAN when Congress is in session and you'll see these hearings in action, or inaction. As far as my political leanings, read the sig line, and figure it out for yourself.
Northcountry Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 If you believe your signature, it is up to the courts to declare (determine) the sense of the law, so what function could Congressional involvement possibly serve other than to inject Congressional oversight into the activities of collegiate athletics? Title IX, Equal Opportunity, Civil Rights Acts have already changed the landscape of college athletics, why would anyone WANT Congress to weigh in on the issue of nicknames, logos, mascots, etc (remember the rule of unintended consequences)? This case is exactly where it belongs right now. The NCAA has acted as a bully and UND has pushed back on its own, defending itself in the best manner possible. We do not need to enlist a counter-bully (Congress) to help fight this battle. If we are right or if we are wrong, it is up to the courts to declare the sense of the law.
ScottM Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 If you believe your signature, it is up to the courts to declare (determine) the sense of the law, so what function could Congressional involvement possibly serve other than to inject Congressional oversight into the activities of collegiate athletics? Title IX, Equal Opportunity, Civil Rights Acts have already changed the landscape of college athletics, why would anyone WANT Congress to weigh in on the issue of nicknames, logos, mascots, etc (remember the rule of unintended consequences)? This case is exactly where it belongs right now. The NCAA has acted as a bully and UND has pushed back on its own, defending itself in the best manner possible. We do not need to enlist a counter-bully (Congress) to help fight this battle. If we are right or if we are wrong, it is up to the courts to declare the sense of the law. And if you fully understood the quote, or the Federalist Society Federalist Society, you would understand that Congress writes laws, courts enforce them. Courts do not, or should not, "make" their own rules up as they go along, e,g., one's "right of privacy". It certainly is within the purview of Congress to investigate the actions of a tax exempt association that may have deviated from its charter, especially where interstate commerce is involved. Moreover, it is naive to suggest that the mere fact the State has sued the NC$$ should somehow preclude Congress from determining whether the actions of a national organization bear scrutiny and/or sanction.
Recommended Posts