Bio not provided
I don't like this. I like the move to a playoff system but I think not linking it at least partially to conference championships takes away the luster of the competitive chase for that title. I also think we're going to end up with at least 2 SEC teams and a Big 12 team every year. That sounds like about zero fun for college football fans in the rest of the nation. It also removes the ability for a team like a Boise State or Houston to get the chance to prove they can play with the big boys Personally I would have preferred 4 or 6 conference champions and two at large bids. The top two teams in BCS rankings are always guaranteed. The 4/6 automatic conferences can be reviewed every so many years. Quarter-finals play at the home of the higher seeded team and the usual BCS bowl games would make up the semifinals This whole thing can be wrapped up in 4 weeks. Most teams sit idle for a few weeks in December anyway. I just feel like the selection committee will always be picking teams from the major conferences and while that might pit the best 4 teams against each other, its missing the opportunity for a Cinderella-type storyline, which America loves.
11 months ago on College Football Playoff: For once, conference commissioners get it right | College Football
The framers possessed exceptional foresight, and also had the experience of a tyrannical British govt, so they wrote 10 amendments to the USC that ensured(or at least thats what they thought) the freedom and liberties of the people, and the rights of the states, would not be infringed upon. When the Fed Govt acts outside the Constitution, its violating articles and enumerated powers of its contract. When the Fed Govt breaks an amendment to the constitution, particularly 1-10, it is infringing on your person, your property, your freedom, and your life. In the first case it would be like your previously mentioned lawn care service deciding it was now going to take care of other parts of your property like painting your house a different color or redoing your roof or other things you did not hire it to do, and then demanding to be paid for it. Most people like I, would fire them. In the second case it would be like the lawn care service coming into your house, taking a shower in your bathroom, eating out of your fridge, watching your big screen tv, and sleeping in your bed. You'd probably tell them to get the hell out and if they didnt, I know my next move would be calling the cops and chambering some buck-shot in my 12-guage. So what I want to know is why dont we do the same with the Fed Govt. They have repeatedly broken our contract with them and violated our liberties. The contract is void and it is time for a new one. As far as "calling the cops" on them, you can do that. Know who is running for your county sheriff. Go to places they show up and ask them important questions like "If a Fed agent is violating my "insert right here" are you going to arrest them?" And I'm not going to say that you should brandish a shotgun to every fed official that infringes on your liberty (besides there aren't enough guns for all of them!) but know that being armed is the best way to stay free.
I think Mr. Schooler, whether knowingly or not, makes a strange statement about the USC keeping liberty in place. This is false on its face. No government KEEPS liberty in place, it TAKES liberty. Only you and I can keep our liberties in place because after all, freedom and liberty do not come from a document or a ruler, they come from our creator and our humanity.
1 year, 5 months ago on How Congress Has Assaulted Our Freedoms in the Patriot Act
Mr. Persuader I do not think you are necessarily wrong, but perhaps half-right. You are correct in saying that the 7 articles of the USC were not put in place to protect any one persons liberty. It was, in its simplest form, a contract between parties establishing an entity to provide the parties with specific services that would otherwise be handled inefficiently by the individual parties. When I try to explain this to people that I have discussions about this with, I use the example of a lawn care service. You've decided that your 60 hour work week on top of little league practices and music recitals doesnt really leave you with the time or energy to maintain your lawn. It would be much more simple and efficient to hire a service to do it for you. You enter into a contract with a company to provide this service to you. In doing so you allow this company to enter your private property and to be compensated but only for the specific cases outlined in your contract. In the case of the United States in 1787, these parties were of course the states and the entity was the Fed Govt.