OT NCAA Basketball discussion

[JasonS]

2012 B1G Defensive Player of the Year, 3rd team All-B1G chosen by the media, 2012 Capital One All-American. I trust their opinions over your amateur opinion. I would value those outlets nearly as much as my opinion (that is saying A LOT).

And there are plenty that don't think that defensive player of the year award was deserved...and there are numbers to back THAT up too. I'll find the article.

 

[JumpinJack5]

Waite, what should have been done, and what should be done, is to castrate all these rapists/murderers and child molesters - preferably with no anesthetic. Then we could start a thread to debate if some NBA/NFL coach would recruit them (they draft all the other criminals). Unfortunately whatever is done or the manner in which justice is served will offend somebody, somehow. Then in our litigious society, somebody will sue and will get all the headlines as if the perpetrator was worth multi-millions of $$$$. Sorry to see it made banner headlines out here, too. The State already gives the condemned sedatives before the lethal injection(s), so the one put to death doesn't feel anything. I don't care if someone claims he was gasping for air. Cruel and unusual is subject to interpretation.

Ugh, living constitutionalism, looks like California is wearing off on you. Nothing is subject to interpretation, because when you leave law up to interpretation, it can be distorted to fit self interest and personal needs. If you don't like the law, we have an amendment process where you can change said law. Sorry to go way off topic, but I am going to pursue a career in law and it fascinates me. I wish more people cared about the Supreme Court and the judicial process as a whole, it is very interesting.

 

[JumpinJack5]

2012 B1G Defensive Player of the Year, 3rd team All-B1G chosen by the media, 2012 Capital One All-American. I trust their opinions over your amateur opinion. I would value those outlets nearly as much as my opinion (that is saying A LOT).

Yes, because the media clearly isn't lazy, just look at that fine establishment, the Cincinnati Enquirer. The media is horrible at judging talent, as they are the morons who give their baseball HOF ballots to deadspin, don't vote for players like Maddux and Glavine because they were in the steroid era, etc. Your opinion reminds me of the media opinion, which, in other words, means that I take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Scheids21]

Ugh, living constitutionalism, looks like California is wearing off on you. Nothing is subject to interpretation, because when you leave law up to interpretation, it can be distorted to fit self interest and personal needs. If you don't like the law, we have an amendment process where you can change said law. Sorry to go way off topic, but I am going to pursue a career in law and it fascinates me. I wish more people cared about the Supreme Court and the judicial process as a whole, it is very interesting.

Every law is up to interpretation, even going by the letter of the law is a way of interpretation which is dangerous in itself.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

Ugh, living constitutionalism, looks like California is wearing off on you. Nothing is subject to interpretation, because when you leave law up to interpretation, it can be distorted to fit self interest and personal needs. If you don't like the law, we have an amendment process where you can change said law. Sorry to go way off topic, but I am going to pursue a career in law and it fascinates me. I wish more people cared about the Supreme Court and the judicial process as a whole, it is very interesting.

I don't think I am much older than you, but you've got A LOT to learn my friend.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

Yes, because the media clearly isn't lazy, just look at that fine establishment, the Cincinnati Enquirer. The media is horrible at judging talent, as they are the morons who give their baseball HOF ballots to deadspin, don't vote for players like Maddux and Glavine because they were in the steroid era, etc. Your opinion reminds me of the media opinion, which, in other words, means that I take it with a grain of salt.

1. Giving his vote to Deadspin was awesome and pointed out the great flaws that reside in the voting process.

2. You are clearly biased. It is okay, I don't know why you like to argue EVERY single thing. Craft is a very good college basketball player, just leave it at that...

 

[JumpinJack5]

Every law is up to interpretation, even going by the letter of the law is a way of interpretation which is dangerous in itself.

Of course, because no position is completely flawless. I just believe in originalism and strict constructionism as the most effective means of interpretation. Read up on Antonin Scalia, my favorite Supreme Court justice, he is very logical and he actually follows the Constitution.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

Of course, because no position is completely flawless. I just believe in originalism and strict constructionism as the most effective means of interpretation. Read up on Antonin Scalia, my favorite Supreme Court justice, he is very logical and he actually follows the Constitution.

That guy is one of the greatest trolls of all time...

 

[JumpinJack5]

1. Giving his vote to Deadspin was awesome and pointed out the great flaws that reside in the voting process.

2. You are clearly biased. It is okay, I don't know why you like to argue EVERY single thing. Craft is a very good college basketball player, just leave it at that...

1) Yes, and do you know why there are great flaws? Because a bunch of writers who never played the game vote on it! How about we have a panel that includes a few writers, a few former well-respected players, a few former well-respected managers, etc. who actually know the game vote on it?

2) Craft is overrated, he gets lots of calls just like Tom Brady does in football because he is Tom Brady. Craft isn't a bad player, he is just vastly overrated. There are at least 25-30 other point guards in the country that I would take over him.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

1) Yes, and do you know why there are great flaws? Because a bunch of writers who never played the game vote on it! How about we have a panel that includes a few writers, a few former well-respected players, a few former well-respected managers, etc. who actually know the game vote on it?

2) Craft is overrated, he gets lots of calls just like Tom Brady does in football because he is Tom Brady. Craft isn't a bad player, he is just vastly overrated. There are at least 25-30 other point guards in the country that I would take over him.

1)It has nothing to do with not playing the game. The problem is there a portion of the voting criteria about morality, and voters have taken that specific part to heart.

2) Name them...

 

[JumpinJack5]

That guy is one of the greatest trolls of all time...

I'll remember that as I head to March for Life next week to protest Roe vs. Wade. Scalia is one of the few Justices to stand up for life.

 

[Scheids21]

Of course, because no position is completely flawless. I just believe in originalism and strict constructionism as the most effective means of interpretation. Read up on Antonin Scalia, my favorite Supreme Court justice, he is very logical and he actually follows the Constitution.

Trust me, I've read plenty of Scalia. The constitution is fantastic and brilliant for its time. It needs to be followed very closely. The problem is that some things need to be developed through time; the world has changed in the last 250 years.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

I'll remember that as I head to March for Life next week to protest Roe vs. Wade. Scalia is one of the few Justices to stand up for life.

/facepalm

You should be banned for even bringing such a topic on a sports board. You really need to grow up.

 

[JumpinJack5]

Trust me, I've read plenty of Scalia. The constitution is fantastic and brilliant for its time. It needs to be followed very closely. The problem is that some things need to be developed through time; the world has changed in the last 250 years.

I agree that the world has changed, but that is why we have an amendment process where you can change laws that are no longer applicable and add laws that are needed. The problem with living constitutionalism is that personal opinion dilutes our constitution constantly. I am a libertarian, so I cannot stand to see our constitution get trashed on a consistent basis.

 

[JumpinJack5]

/facepalm

You should be banned for even bringing such a topic on a sports board. You really need to grow up.

You can only get banned for personal attacks, I'm just stating my opinion on an off-topic discussion. I find it all interesting and I'm willing to hear other arguments, but clearly you are only interested in making ad-hominem attacks towards me. I will get back on topic when the mods want me to, not when you tell me to. This is an off-topic thread, you know? And Waite brought up an off-topic issue that I found appealing as someone interested in that career field.

 

[Scheids21]

I don't agree with you, but you can't rely on the amendment system for every flaw in the law. It is too extensive.

 

[JumpinJack5]

I don't agree with you, but you can't rely on the amendment system for every flaw in the law. It is too extensive.

Fair enough, I enjoy and welcome other opinions and perspectives. My point is that we have too many federal laws that it dilutes our judicial system. There are usually between 3,000-4,000 new federal laws each and every year, so you cannot possibly follow all the laws, as there are many contradictions within these laws. If we stuck to letting the states handle regulation and didn't create so many frivolous laws, our government would become much more efficient. The problem with making exceptions is that precedent plays a key role in the outcome of many cases. In other words, if you make an exception for one person, you must make an exception for everyone.

 

[CaptDale]

Fair enough, I enjoy and welcome other opinions and perspectives. My point is that we have too many federal laws that it dilutes our judicial system. There are usually between 3,000-4,000 new federal laws each and every year, so you cannot possibly follow all the laws, as there are many contradictions within these laws. If we stuck to letting the states handle regulation and didn't create so many frivolous laws, our government would become much more efficient. The problem with making exceptions is that precedent plays a key role in the outcome of many cases. In other words, if you make an exception for one person, you must make an exception for everyone.

And that's why we have 9 Supremes - not just Scalia. Each interprets the Constitution in their own way. Roe v. Wade = perfect example. I love when a verdict that goes through the entire justice system is handed down, and then the losing side still wants to fight the decision. Do you identify with this?

 

[Scheids21]

And that's why we have 9 Supremes - not just Scalia. Each interprets the Constitution in their own way. Roe v. Wade = perfect example. I love when a verdict that goes through the entire justice system is handed down, and then the losing side still wants to fight the decision. Do you identify with this?

Don't open this Pandora's box. As much as I've indulged, this isn't a political forum. Moderators, please close this thread.

 

[JumpinJack5]

And that's why we have 9 Supremes - not just Scalia. Each interprets the Constitution in their own way. Roe v. Wade = perfect example. I love when a verdict that goes through the entire justice system is handed down, and then the losing side still wants to fight the decision. Do you identify with this?

Yes, and that is why I support a constitutional amendment banning said issue. I realize that there are 9 Supremes, I just enjoy Scalia because he holds similar beliefs to mine. Plus, even if you disagree with him, his dissenting opinions are very funny. And just because you lose a decision does not mean you cannot peacefully protest it. Have you ever heard of the First Amendment and free speech? As long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others or prove to be a "clear and present danger" to others, I can voice my opinion, it is the beauty of America.