Congress is talking about the most important bill of our lifetime

Munkus Beaver

The most important thing.

Ever.

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 390

To prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, the promotion, marketing, and advertising of any post-season NCAA Division I football game as a national championship game unless such game is the culmination of a fair and equitable playoff system.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 9, 2009

Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself, Mr. RUSH, and Mr. MCCAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

Dangerou-Dave

Let's do it!

Munkus Beaver

Is anybody surprised that this was introduced by the Texas representatives, though?

Dangerou-Dave

What do you guys think of, after the super bowl, having the 'worst bowl'

Where the two lowest ranked teams in the NFL play each other.

The loser is the worst team in America.

AND WINS FIRST PICK IN THE NFL DRAFT!

Munkus Beaver

That's NFL.

This is college.

What are you doing.

Dangerou-Dave

I know, fuck, I already said I support NCAA football playoffs.

Though I do like watching all the BCS games.

The playoffs would have to be very short. Like the top 10 ranked teams only or so...It'd be very expensive and unrealistic to expect an NFL-like playoff season.

Clint Eastwood

The Lions earned the first pick by playing so badly, bro.

Futore

no what's awesome? more important issues

Stormin Joe

what is this about?

Munkus Beaver

You can still have the fuckmuppetry that is the billion bowls. It's just that they will have some meaning. Well, some of them will.

Then there will be the poinsetta bowl or whatever.

Dangerou-Dave

Cloudman wrote: »

The Lions earned the first pick by playing so badly, bro.

I'm just saying...the first draft pick shouldn't just be handed to the worst team in the NFL...they need to work for that shit. Work terribly.

But yeah, jesus...the Lions huh. Man...

Clint Eastwood

But yeah I support the playoff system. Thank you Obama and Mr. Barton!

Bogey

I knew something like this was going to happen, I just didn't think it would come up so quickly.

They had both candidates speak during halftime of the Monday Night Football NFL game the night before the election. When asked about what he would most like changed in the world of sports, Obama suggested a Playoff system to replace the BCS.

satansfingers

i have actually read some pretty compelling arguments against playoffs

Clint Eastwood

Bogey wrote: »

I knew something like this was going to happen, I just didn't think it would come up so quickly.

They had both candidates speak during halftime of the Monday Night Football NFL game the night before the election. During his talk, Obama suggested a Playoff system to replace the BCS.

He's mentioned it since then too. Obviously there's more pressing issues but I like the haste that this has been done with.

Futore

LIONS! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DETROIT!

Fallout

Munkus Beaver wrote: »

The most important thing.

Ever.

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 390

To prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, the promotion, marketing, and advertising of any post-season NCAA Division I football game as a national championship game unless such game is the culmination of a fair and equitable playoff system.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 9, 2009

Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself, Mr. RUSH, and Mr. MCCAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

gay

Goatmon

Munkus Beaver wrote: »

Is anybody surprised that this was introduced by the Texas representatives, though?

I am shocked and appalled.

Faricazy

please explain to someone that doesn't watch football why congress, or in fact, any arm of the government is trying to regulate a sports system

Munkus Beaver

Bogey wrote: »

I knew something like this was going to happen, I just didn't think it would come up so quickly.

They had both candidates speak during halftime of the Monday Night Football NFL game the night before the election. When asked about what he would most like changed in the world of sports, Obama suggested a Playoff system to replace the BCS.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who wants to win a reelection in the southeastern United States is going to vote for this bill.

Munkus Beaver

Faricazy wrote: »

please explain to someone that doesn't watch football why congress, or in fact, any arm of the government is trying to regulate a sports system

(1) college football games, including post-season football games, depend upon competition between college and university teams traveling in interstate commerce

(2) the competitions involve and affect interstate commerce and are therefore within Congress's constitutional authority to regulate

Goatmon

I think your previous post was a better answer for that question.

Faricazy

the commerce aspect i understand

but the playoff part

i mean

what

sarukun

Munkus Beaver wrote: »

Faricazy wrote: »

please explain to someone that doesn't watch football why congress, or in fact, any arm of the government is trying to regulate a sports system

(1) enormous boatloads of money

Dangerou-Dave

However, interstate relations themselves are regulated by the state governments with congressional approval*

Howwweeeevverrrr the federal government gets revenue from the states

HOOOOWEVER the states get matching funds, categorical and block grants from the federal government to pay for social services and things

Fun facts

*The states are supposed to get federal approval for state to state compacts, but usually, they just enter into the compacts, and stop only when congress is like, 'Hey don't do that'

Faricazy

can we just raze congress please

Stormin Joe

Munkus Beaver wrote: »

Faricazy wrote: »

please explain to someone that doesn't watch football why congress, or in fact, any arm of the government is trying to regulate a sports system

(1) college football games, including post-season football games, depend upon competition between college and university teams traveling in interstate commerce

(2) the competitions involve and affect interstate commerce and are therefore within Congress's constitutional authority to regulate

A++ this is the best reason i have heard

Monoxide

the BCS sucks so I'd kind of like to see this happen

I think any argument to the validity of the BCS ended with the PapaJohns.Com Bowl

Munkus Beaver

Faricazy wrote: »

the commerce aspect i understand

but the playoff part

i mean

what

the colleges and universities whose teams participate in the post-season football bowls experience significant financial windfall including increased applications for enrollment, recruiting advantages, increased alumni donations, and increased corporate sponsorship that provides a competitive advantage over universities whose teams are ineligible or statistically at a disadvantage from the BCS bowl competitions because of their conference affiliation

sarukun

Not that USC needs any more money, but the BCS is still dog poop.

Munkus Beaver

Monoxide wrote: »

the BCS sucks so I'd kind of like to see this happen

I think any argument to the validity of the BCS ended with the PapaJohns.Com Bowl

MediaWhore dot Gov Bowl

Riale

But, Obama would be missing out on the potential of an oh-so-valuable VoteForObama Bowl in 2012.

Fallout

Faricazy wrote: »

can we just raze congress please

but

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/sleeper_bill_of_the_month.php

Sleeper Bill of the Month: Our Own Truth & Reconciliation Commission
By Elana Schor - January 9, 2009, 3:00PM

It happens more often than you might think on Capitol Hill: a new bill is announced by a congressional office, with little fanfare and fewer co-sponsors than it deserves but a purpose so abundantly sensible that the plan cries out for more attention.

Such is the case with H.R. 104, a bill introduced on Tuesday by House judiciary committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and nine other lawmakers. The measure would set up a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties, with subpoena power and a reported budget of around $3 million, to investigate issues ranging from detainee treatment to waterboarding to extraordinary rendition. The panel's members would hail from outside the government and be appointed by the president and congressional leaders of both parties.

Sounds like a great idea. In fact, it sounds a lot like Senate armed services committee chairman Carl Levin's (D-MI) proposed interrogation-policy commission that has been kicking around since 2005. So why does such a good bill only have 10 co-sponsors?

The answer is complicated -- and neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have returned my calls to talk about it. But I'd wager that it has a lot to do with the Democratic majority's desire to turn the page on the Bush years and begin pressing on with an Obama agenda designed to showcase its ability to govern. Nothing wrong with that.

But as the stimulus plan and financial regulation and health care reform and a host of worthy issues takes up the oxygen in Washington over the coming months, who will make sure that accountability for past misdeeds gets as much attention as current achievements? Who will shed more sunshine on the debacles of the Bush years?

There's support in the House for it (although not yet, it appears, from leadership). There's a constituency in the Senate for it, and inside the Obama camp. Does anybody think that this sleeper bill will get so much as a hearing in any of the three separate committees it's been referred to?

We're watching, and we'll let you know.

Late Update: HuffPo spotted a Conyers appearance on the Bill Press show, in which the lawmaker suggests that the best forum for investigating Bush administration crimes may be the World Court or another international body.

Given that our current (still) president rejected the International Criminal Court -- though he had at least one kumbaya moment with the U.N. International Court of Justice -- it would be deliciously ironic to see Bush finally face the music on an international level. Still, wouldn't a domestically convened panel be the best, and most cathartic, venue for an inquiry like this?

Late Late Update: You can read a draft version of H.R. 104 here.

Clint Eastwood

They can name the championship game the Obama Bowl because he got the ball rolling.

Ha ha, ball, sports, etc.

Volucrisus Aedrius

Fucking Goddamnit.

Fuck you, Congress.

Fuck you.

sarukun

Fallout wrote: »

Faricazy wrote: »

can we just raze congress please

but

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/sleeper_bill_of_the_month.php

Sleeper Bill of the Month: Our Own Truth & Reconciliation Commission
By Elana Schor - January 9, 2009, 3:00PM

It happens more often than you might think on Capitol Hill: a new bill is announced by a congressional office, with little fanfare and fewer co-sponsors than it deserves but a purpose so abundantly sensible that the plan cries out for more attention.

Such is the case with H.R. 104, a bill introduced on Tuesday by House judiciary committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and nine other lawmakers. The measure would set up a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties, with subpoena power and a reported budget of around $3 million, to investigate issues ranging from detainee treatment to waterboarding to extraordinary rendition. The panel's members would hail from outside the government and be appointed by the president and congressional leaders of both parties.

Sounds like a great idea. In fact, it sounds a lot like Senate armed services committee chairman Carl Levin's (D-MI) proposed interrogation-policy commission that has been kicking around since 2005. So why does such a good bill only have 10 co-sponsors?

The answer is complicated -- and neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have returned my calls to talk about it. But I'd wager that it has a lot to do with the Democratic majority's desire to turn the page on the Bush years and begin pressing on with an Obama agenda designed to showcase its ability to govern. Nothing wrong with that.

But as the stimulus plan and financial regulation and health care reform and a host of worthy issues takes up the oxygen in Washington over the coming months, who will make sure that accountability for past misdeeds gets as much attention as current achievements? Who will shed more sunshine on the debacles of the Bush years?

There's support in the House for it (although not yet, it appears, from leadership). There's a constituency in the Senate for it, and inside the Obama camp. Does anybody think that this sleeper bill will get so much as a hearing in any of the three separate committees it's been referred to?

We're watching, and we'll let you know.

Late Update: HuffPo spotted a Conyers appearance on the Bill Press show, in which the lawmaker suggests that the best forum for investigating Bush administration crimes may be the World Court or another international body.

Given that our current (still) president rejected the International Criminal Court -- though he had at least one kumbaya moment with the U.N. International Court of Justice -- it would be deliciously ironic to see Bush finally face the music on an international level. Still, wouldn't a domestically convened panel be the best, and most cathartic, venue for an inquiry like this?

Late Late Update: You can read a draft version of H.R. 104 here.

Give me a fucking break.

Fallout

sarukun wrote: »

Give me a fucking break.

get fucked, you pompous faggot

BYToady

So when does the UN start bitching about the United States claiming "World Championships" when no other countries get to compete?

Stormin Joe

BYToady wrote: »

So when does the UN start bitching about the United States claiming "World Championships" when no other countries get to compete?

thursday after next

Faricazy

hoooooly balls

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20090114/NEWS/901140351/1001/news

For now, Jackson residents can wear their pants any way they want to.

The City Council voted 4-2 against a plan Tuesday that would have made it unlawful for people to wear pants below the waistline exposing their underwear.

The council members who voted against the saggy-pants ban said it likely was unconstitutional.

But Mayor Frank Melton, who joined the council meeting via telephone from Texas, said he will issue an executive order instituting the dress code.

"I certainly respect the Constitution," Melton said, "but we have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution."

speechless

Fabricate

Faricazy wrote: »

hoooooly balls

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20090114/NEWS/901140351/1001/news

For now, Jackson residents can wear their pants any way they want to.

The City Council voted 4-2 against a plan Tuesday that would have made it unlawful for people to wear pants below the waistline exposing their underwear.

The council members who voted against the saggy-pants ban said it likely was unconstitutional.

But Mayor Frank Melton, who joined the council meeting via telephone from Texas, said he will issue an executive order instituting the dress code.

"I certainly respect the Constitution," Melton said, "but we have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution."

speechless

w...wha...

what!?